Chattisgarh High Court
Vishwanath vs Smt. Anjani on 18 June, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:25144
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order Reserved on 10.06.2025
Order Pronounced on 18.06.2025
FAM No. 185 of 2018
1 - Vishwanath S/o Shyamram Aged About 40 Years Occupation Service,
R/o Village Unchdih, Police Station And Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur
Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant/Plaintiff
versus
1 - Smt. Anjani W/o Vishwanath Rajwade Aged About 32 Years R/o Village
Unchdih, Police Station And Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
Presently At Village Kanchanpur, Patelpara, Post - Kakna, Police Station
Dhourpur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja
(Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
... Respondent/Defendant
(Cause tittle is taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. R.V. Rajwade, Advocate.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
C A V Order
1. The appellant / husband has filed instant appeal under Section 28 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth, 'Act, 1955') against the impugned
judgment & decree dated 14.03.2018 (Annexure A-1) passed by District
Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 60-A/2015
(Vishvnath v. Smt. Anjani) whereby learned trial Court has dismissed the
civil suit filed by the appellant / plaintiff for grant of decree of divorce on the
ground of cruelty.
2. Facts of the case, as projected by the appellant/plaintiff, is that his
marriage was performed with respondent/defendant on 23.05.2000 as per
Hindu customs and rituals and they have been blessed with two child. It is
allegation of the husband / plaintiff that his wife/respondent frequently used
to go her maternal place without informing him and she also used to wander
with various persons and made physical relation with them. She used to
allege husband that he did not satisfy her physically and threat him to
implicate in dowry case. The husband has also alleged that the
respondent/wife has got done Tubectomy (T.T.) operation without his
consent. Social meeting was also convened for settling their dispute,
despite that conduct of respondent / wife did not improve , therefore,
husband filed civil suit seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
3. Respondent / wife filed her written statement stating inter alia that
She went for a tubectomy (TT) operation with her husband's aunt Tapeswari
Rajwadi, who was a 'Mitanin', with the consent of her husband.
appellant/husband used to doubt her character without any reason. She
also runs grocery / hardware shop in their house, which was opened by
husband himself. In the said shop, she used to deal with the customers with
cheerful / jocular manner, therefore, husband used to doubte her character.
She did not harass the husband in any count, rather he himself has illicit
relation with other females. She has further pleaded that husband wants to
perform second marriage, therefore, he has ousted her from her
matrimonial house and levelled various false and baseless allegations
against ther.
4. On the basis of pleading of both the parties, learned trial Court framed
as many as four issues, recorded evidence adduced by both the parties and
after considering the same, civil suit filed by the appellant/husband for
decree of divorce, has been dismissed vide impugned judgment & decree,
which has been challenged by the appellant/husband by filing instant first
appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant / plaintiff would submit
that though respondent/wife is mother of two children of appellant, despite
that she did not carry her chastity and has developed physical relation with
various persons namely Mukhtar, Naderuddin and Nasiruddin @ Lallu.
Even at once, appellant/husband had also found condom in her vagina. He
further stated that several efforts were made to convince the wife and
various social meeting were also convened, despite that there was no
change in her behaviour. It is further submitted that instead of taking care of
house & children, respondent/wife used to go her maternal place without
consent or informing the appellant. Even she also underwent tubectomy
operation without consent of husband. Thus, she (wife) mentally harassed
the appellant on various counts and leaving apart from him since 2015, as
such, there is an irretrievable breakdown in the marital life of both the
parties, but learned trial Court without considering evidence adduced by the
plaintiff/husband in its true perspective, has dismissed the civil suit, which is
perverse and illegal, hence, he prayed that appeal may be allowed and
decree may be granted in favour of appellant/husband. He placed reliance
upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter of K. Shrinivas
Rao vs. D.A. Deepa1, K. Shrinivas vs. K. Sunita2, C. Sembiam
1 (2013) 5 SCC 226
2 (2014) 16 SCC 34
Sivakumar vs. V. Sivachitra Devi 3, Raj Talreja vs. Kavita Talreja4 and
Rani Narasimha Sastry v. Rani Suneela Rani 5 in support of his
submission.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent would submit
that impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court is based on well
appreciation of evidence, hence, it does not call for any interference by this
Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of trial Court including judgment & decree of the trial Court.
8. Plaintiff/husband has sought decree of divorce mainly on the ground
of cruelty meted out to him by respondent/wife. In this regard, he has stated
in his deposition that without obtaining his permission, wife/defendant
underwent Tubectomy operation, she also used to go her maternal place
without his permission and also wanders with various persons namely
Mukhtar, Naderuddin and Nasiruddin @ Lallu by making illicit physical
relation with them. It has further been deposed by appellant/husband in his
deposition that respondent / wife used to threat him to implicate in false
cases and since June, 2015, she has left his company and residing at her
parental place.
9. Aforesaid deposition of plaintiff - Vishwanath (PW-1) has also been
supported by his witnesses namely Mohd. Musafir Ansari (PW-2) and Nanhi
Ram (PW-3), but plaintiff Vishwanath (PW-1) on one hand he states that his
wife has elicit relation with said persons but on the other hand he denied in
his cross-examination that neither he known to Mukhtar, Naderuddin and
3 (2016) 16 SCC 545
4 (2017) 14 SCC 194
5 (2020) 18 SCC 247
Nasiruddin @ Lallu nor he has ever seen them. He has also admitted that
neither he has seen his wife (defendant) with said persons nor he has seen
or heard defendant in talking with those persons. He has also admitted that
those persons have never threatened to kill him. Aforesaid admission of
plaintiff - Vishwanath Rajwade (PW-1) shows that alleging chastity of
defendant / wife is based on suspicion only, as has been stated by
defendant - Smt. Anjai Rajwawade (DW-2) that her husband doubted her
character, as she deal with the customer in her grocery shop with cheerful
(jocular) manner.
10. Shivchand Ram (DW-3) & Sakal Ram (DW-4), who are also resident
of village Unchdeeh, District Surajpur, have supported the deposition of
defendant/wife stating that husband used to doubt character of his wife.
The fact also get support from document (Ex.P-1), whereby copy of enquiry
report submitted by Police Chowki Basdai, Thana Surajpur to
Superintendent of Police, Surajpur, District Surajpur in respect of complaint
made by plaintiff / husband against his defendant / wife, which was
supplied to the plaintiff himself vide covering memo (Ex.P-1). In this enquiry
report also, it has been reported that the plaintiff/husband not only doubted
character of his wife, rather he used to quarrel in respect of trivial issues
with her. Plaintiff - Vishwanath Rajwade (PW-1) has admitted in paragraph
24 of his cross-examination that except petty dispute, no quarrel had taken
place between them. Though in examination-in-chief Mohd. Musafir Ansari
(PW-2) and Nanhi Ram (PW-3) have supported the version of plaintiff, but in
cross-examination, they have rebutted their substantive statement of
examination-in-chief.
11. Though, plaintiff Vishwanath Rajwade (PW-1) has stated in his
deposition that without his consent / permission, defendant / wife had
undergone Tubectomy operation, but respondent/wife (DW-2) herself has
stated that she underwent Tubectomy operation with the consent of her
husband and she had gone for the said operation along with Tapeshwari
Rajwade (DW-1) [ Mitanin], who is aunt of plaintiff. This fact has also been
supported by Tapeshwari Rajwade (DW-1).
12. Though from the evidence adduced by both the parties, it is found
that defendant/wife is living apart from her husband/plaintiff since 2015, but
defendant - Smt. Anjani Rajwade has specifically deposed that since they
have two children, therefore, she wanted to carry her marital life with the
plaintiff/husband, but plaintiff himself is not interested in this regard.
13. Having considered evidence available on record as discussed above,
grounds of cruelty raised by the plaintiff against respondent/defendant -
Anjali Rajwade has not been proved by him. However, both the parties are
residing separately since 2015, but decree of divorce cannot be granted
merely due to long separation for a number of years, if no valid grounds for
the divorce are proved by the plaintiff / husband.
14. In the case of K. Srinivas Vs. K. Sunita (supra) cited by counsel for
the appellant/husband, decree of divorce was granted by the Supreme
Court on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, but the same
was granted by the Apex Court by exercising its plenary powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which is not available to this Court.
15. In the case of C. Sembiam Sivakumar (supra), Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that marriage was never consummated by the parties and
after granting decree by the trial Court, respondent/wife has accepted
Rs. 5 lakhs as permanent alimony and appellant/husband was not
interested to prosecute any litigation for recovery of gold and other articles
worth more than Rs.5 lakhs. In such situation of the case, Hon'ble Apex
court granted decree of divorce, but facts situation of the instant case is not
similar to the aforesaid cases, therefore, that case is not helpful for the
appellant in the fact situation of the instant case.
16. In the instant case, it has not been proved by the appellant/husband
that any criminal case was lodged by defendant/ wife against him or she
has made any false complaint alleging reckless/indecent defamatory
allegations against him, therefore, case of K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa
(supra), Raj Talreja vs. Kavita Talreja (supra) and Rani Narasimha
Sastry vs. Rani Suneela Rani (supra) are also not helpful to the appellant,
as in those cases wife had launched criminal case against husband and
family members levelling false allegations and had made reckless/indecent
defamatory complaint against her husband, but in the instant case, nothing
has been proved by the appellant / plaintiff in this regard.
17. Having considered the facts and evidence available on record, which
has been discussed by learned trial Court in detail while dismissing the civil
suit, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned
warranting interference of this Court, hence the same is hereby affirmed.
18. Accordingly, the first appeal (M), being devoid of substance, is liable
to be and is hereby dismissed.
19. A decree be drawn up accordingly.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
AMIT by AMIT
KUMAR DUBEY
KUMAR Date:
DUBEY 2025.06.19
10:31:59 +0530
