Govind Chandak vs Smt. Kiran Chandak (Maheshwari)
2023 Latest Caselaw 1141 Chatt

                               1

                                                           NAFR

       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                   F.A. (M) No. 96 of 2019

             Judgment Reserved on : 02.02.2023

             Judgment Delivered on : 23.02.2023

Govind Chandak, S/o Shri Shankar Chandak, aged about 47
years, R/o Near Ram Mandir, In front of Maheshwari Bhawan,
Saja, Tahsil & Police Statio Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.)

                                           ---Appellant/Plaintiff

                            Versus

Smt. Kiran Chandak (Maheshwari), W/o Govind Chandak, aged
about 43 years, R/o near Durga Mandir, in front of Chaudhary
Company, Ground Floor, Digvijay College Road, Rajnandgaon,
District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

                                     ---- Respondent/Defendant



For Appellant           : Mr. Ajay Thakre, Advocate.
For Respondent          : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate.


            Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
           Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi

                       CAV JUDGMENT

Per N.K. Chandravanshi, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the husband/appellant

against the judgment & decree dated 27.02.2019 passed by Family

Court, Bemetara, District Bemetara in Civil Suit No. 47-A/2017

[C.I.S. No. A/47/2017] whereby an application preferred by the

appellant/husband under Section 13(1)(ia) (ib) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1955") seeking

decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion was

dismissed.

2. Factual matrix of the case, in brief, are that marriage

between the parties was solemnized in the year 1999; appellant

(henceforth "Husband") was 50% disabled person to his right leg

whereas respondent (henceforth "Wife") is also having burn

injuries on her face, hand, neck & ear, prior to their marriage. At

the relevant point of time, husband was residing in the house of his

maternal uncle (ekek) at Balod and working in his Rice Mill. After

marriage, both the parties resided at Balod. On 25.12.2000, they

blessed with a girl child namely Sakshi. When their daughter

became one year of age, then wife left her with her parents at

Rajnandgaon. Thereafter, she started quarreling with the husband

and also used to scold and insult him due to his disability. For the

pleasure of her wife, they came to reside alongwith parents and

other family members of husband at Saja in the year 2003. After

few days, wife again started quarelling with husband over petty

issues, hence, social meeting of prominent people of their Society

was convened and despite being explained by those, she did not

agree and on being insisted by her, both husband & wife went to

parental place of wife at Rajnandgaon. She also assured her

husband to secure him job and take care of him. They resided for

about 8 months at Rajnandgaon, but she did not provide him job.

Even she did not pay attention to his food and basic amenities and

used to go from the house leaving him there. Due to such conduct

& behaviour of wife, husband was facing huge problems, having

being disabled, he could not go alone anywhere without any

assistance. Hence, on 27.03.2007, after giving intimation to the

Police Station - Rajnandgaon, husband came back at his parental

place at Saja. In between, wife instituted Dowry Harrasment case

in the Court of Rajnandgaon against husband and his family

members, which was disposed of after settlement arrived at

between the parties. Pursuant to the maintenance application filed

by wife & daughter before the concerned Family Court, husband is

paying Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to them. It is further

stated that wife wants to live her life independently and she does

not want to take care of her disabled husband, therefore, since

2007, she has left his company and residing separately at

Rajnandgaon, thereby, she has deserted him and deprived the

husband from his conjugal bliss and not fulfilling her marital

obligations, which amounts to cruelty by her towards husband.

Hence, husband filed an application seeking decree of divorce on

the ground of cruelty and desertion against wife.

3. In reply, wife, while denying all the adverse allegations, has

stated therein that husband himself does not want to fulfill his

responsibilities towards wife and their daughter and wants to get

rid from them. It is further stated that husband used to scold her

due to her burn injuries and thus caused mental cruelty to her. She

wants to lead marital life with husband but he himself has left them

(wife & daughter) at Rajnandgaon and came back to his parental

place at Saja. Although, he is giving maintenance of Rs.4,000/-

per month, but he himself has left them and compelled them to live

alone. It is further stated that she has never filed any dowry

harassment case against the husband or his family members,

rather he does not want to fulfill his family responsibilities towards

them, therefore, he has levelled baseless allegations by filing

instant application, hence, his aforesaid application deserves to be

dismissed.

4. On the basis of pleadings made by both the parties, learned

Family Court has framed issues of cruelty and desertion and after

considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, negated

both the issues and has dismissed the application filed by the

husband. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with such finding

recording by the Family Court, instant appeal has been preferred

by the husband questioning the same.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant / husband

would submit that wife, while residing at Balod and Saja,

persistently quarreled with the husband over petty issues and she

also used to insult and humiliate him due to his disablement. She

does not want to live at Saja and on being compelled by her,

husband went to Rajnandgaon, which is matrimonial place of wife,

where they resided but there also wife did not take care of him and

even she used to leave him alone in the house without providing

him food and other amenities. Being handicapped, husband could

not go alone anywhere without any assistance. It is further

submitted that due to such harassment meted out to the husband,

he was compelled to leave Rajnandgaon, therefore, on

27.03.2007, he came back at his parental place Saja. It is further

submitted that since 2007, wife has left the company of husband,

various efforts were made by husband to bring her back but she

did not join his company, thus, she has deserted him since 2007

and not fulfilling her marital obligations, which also amounts to

cruelty towards husband. These facts have been proved by the

husband and his witnesses, but learned Family Court without

properly appreciating the oral & documentary evidence adduced by

the husband, dismissed his application, which is against the

evidence available on record. Hence, it is prayed that appeal may

be allowed and decree of divorce may be granted in favour of the

husband.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent/wife would submit that wife has never caused any

cruelty in any manner with the husband. Allegations levelled in this

regard are very much trivial in nature. It is further submitted that in

the year 2006, husband himself went to Rajnandgaon alongwith

the wife where they resided together for about 8 months. At

Rajnandgaon, wife arranged job for him in Plywood Factory but he

left the work and without any valid and sufficient reason, he came

back at his parental place, Saja, leaving behind wife and daughter

at Rajnandgaon. It is further submitted that impugned judgment

passed by the learned Family Court is well merited, which does not

call for any interference of this Court.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the impugned order, record of the court below and other material

available on record with utmost circumspection.

8. Husband - Govind Chandak (AW-1) in his statement has

reiterated his pleading that when they were residing at Balod, wife

used to quarrel with him and harassing him. She also used to

humiliate him due to his disability; she did not take care of him.

After 2003, when they came to Saja, there also wife used to

quarrel with him unnecessarily and despite being explained by

prominent persons of their society, she compelled him to come at

Rajnandgaon, therefore, he went to Rajnandgaon and resided

there for about 8 months with wife. She has assured him to

provide him job but she did not provide the same, rather she kept

Rs.3,000/-, which was sent per month by his parents. He has

further stated that at Rajnandgaon, she used to go from the house

without taking care about his food, etc., therefore, on 27.3.2007, he

came back at his parental place Saja.

9. Statement of the husband (AW-1) has been supported by

Omprakash Tawri (AW-2), Harishankar Tawri (AW-3) and Sohanlal

Tawri (AW-4), but they have stated the facts as verbatim as has

been stated by the husband in his deposition, although Omprakash

Tawri (AW-2) and Harishankar Tawri (AW-3) have stated in their

deposition that the wife is arrogant type lady and on being insisted

by her, husband had gone with her to reside at Rajnandgaon but

only due to this reason, conduct of wife could not be termed as

cruelty. These witnesses are witnesses of documents Ex.P-2,

Ex.P-3 & Ex.P-13 and Ex.P-6, Ex.P-3 & P-2 &, but these

documents are only documents written by wife in respect of

various articles taken by her from her matrimonial home, rather

Agreement Ex. D-6 executed by husband shows that husband

himself had gone with wife at Rajnandgaon on his own free will

and settlement arrived at between the family members of both the

parties, hence, it cannot be said that he was compelled by wife to

go Rajnandgaon with her.

10. Sakshi Chandak (NAW-1), who is daughter of appellant &

respondent, has denied that her mother used to cause cruelty in

any count towards her father, rather she has stated that allegations

levelled against her mother are false & fabricated. She has

admitted suggestions of counsel of respondent that her mother

used to do work of preparing meal in other's house.

11. Wife - Kiran Chandak (NAW-2), in her cross-examination,

has clearly admitted the suggestion of counsel of respondent that

he (husband) never scolded her due to her burn injuries. She has

also denied the fact that she has ever scolded husband due to his

disability.

12. Whatever allegations have been levelled by husband and

his witnesses against the wife are seems to be very much trivial in

nature, as both the parties have some deformities, it also seems

that financially they belongs to family of lower strata wherein some

sort of quarrel taken place normally. Hence, alleged conduct &

behaviour of wife levelled by husband is not found to be such level

that because of which, it is not possible for the husband to live with

the wife.

13. Husband - Govind Chandak (AW-1) and his witnesses have

stated in their deposition that wife had filed dowry harrssment case

against the husband, which was settled after compromise but no

document has been filed / proved in this regard, rather husband

himself had made written complaint (Ex.P-10) to the Station House

Officer, Police Station Saja that wife has threatened to kill them

and implicate them in false case, but this complaint was made on

4.1.2013, whereas it is a case of husband himself that wife is

residing at Rajnandgaon since 2007, hence, only on the basis of

such complaint, it cannot be held that she has extended alleged

threat to the husband. On the contrary, copy of proceedings under

Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. for non-cognizable offences (Ex.P-9c)

shows that on 27.3.2007, when husband left Rajnandgaon, then he

made complaint to the police alleging that his wife did not provide

him food and also harass him, but police did not take any action on

his report. Thus, these documents also do not constitute any

cruelty by wife towards husband to such level, which could be

termed as a ground for granting decree of divorce.

14. The Supreme Court, in a series of judgments, has explained

what is meant by cruelty as envisaged under the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955. In the case of A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur 1, their

Lordships of the Supreme Court has held as under :-

"12. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be "grave and weighty" so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than "ordinary wear and tear of married life". The conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together 1 2005 (2) SCC 22

without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party."

15. In Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh 2, their Lordships of the

Supreme Court has held in paragraph 101 as under:-

"101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of "mental cruelty". The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive :

(I) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.

(ii) On comprehensive appriasal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.

2 (2007) 4 SCC 511

(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.

(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.

(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.

(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.

(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.

(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not

be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.

(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.

(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.

(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty."

16. Reverting to the instant case, if we apply the aforesaid legal

proposition in the facts of the instant case, then it cannot be said

that any such conduct of wife is found to be proved to constitute

cruelty to the extent, which could be a ground for granting decree

of divorce on the ground of cruelty, hence, we do not find any merit

to the ground of cruelty raised by the husband against the wife.

17. So far as ground of desertion is concerned, Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case of Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra

Pandey 3 has observed in paragraph 9 as under :-

9. Following the decision in Bipinchandra Jaisinghbai Shah v. Pabhavati4 this Court again reiterated the legal position in Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v.

Meena alias Mota [AIR 1964 SC 40] by holding that in its essence desertion means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that other's consent, and without reasonable cause. For the offence of desertion so far as deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions must be there (1) the factum of separation and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi). Similarly two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned: (1) the absence of consent, and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention aforesaid. For holding desertion proved the inference may be drawn from certain facts which may not in another case be capable of leading to the same inference; that is to say the facts have to be viewed as to the purpose which is revealed by those acts or by conduct and expression of intention, both anterior and subsequent to the actual acts of

3 (2002) 2 SCC 73 4 AIR 1957 SC 176

separation."

18. In the instant case, oral and documentary evidence adduced

by both the parties, which is supported by Ikrarnama (Ex.P-13),

shows that on 28.8.2006, both husband & wife went to

Rajnandgaon, husband and his witnesses have also admitted that

husband resided there for about 8 months along with

respondent/wife and on 27.3.2007 he himself left Rajnandgaon

and came back to his parental place Saja. Thus, after going and

residing at Rajnandgaon by both the parties, husband left the

company of wife and reasons assigned by him in this regard is not

found to be valid & sufficient. Aforesaid facts show that the wife

has not deserted the husband, rather husband himself has

deserted the wife since 27.3.2007, therefore, ground of desertion is

also not found proved against the wife that she has deserted the

husband. Further wife has pleaded and stated in her deposition

that she is still ready to lead marital life with the husband. She has

also deposed that in between, she has tried to join the company of

husband but it seems that husband himself has not taken any

interest in this regard, therefore, re-union of them could not

happen.

20. Having regard to the facts of the case and foregoing

discussion of evidences, we are of the considered opinion that

finding of the Family Court does not require any interference in this

appeal.

21. In the result, the first appeal, being devoid of substance, is

liable to be and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear

their own costs.

22. Let a decree be drawn up accordingly.

                Sd/-                                      Sd/-
          (Goutam Bhaduri)                        (N.K. Chandravanshi)
             Judge                                      Judge

Amit