Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 129 (CHH)

MAHESH KUMAR SINHA v. YAMINI SINHA

2013-04-12

Prashant Kumar Mishra, SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2013
JUDGMENT As per Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.- 1. Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 30th of April, 2010 passed in Civil Suit No. 28-A/2009 by the Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, the plaintiff has flied this appeal. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- 2.1 Defendant was married to the plaintiff on 13.5.2002. She resided with the plaintiff and his family members till 28.10.2002; the, plaintiff alleged that she had treated him with cruelty as she wanted to live separately; she also made various allegations against the plaintiff; she used to quarrel with the plaintiff; a false report was lodged by the defendant u/Ss 498-A, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. All this amounted to cruelty, therefore, a decree of divorce may be passed. 2.2 The defendant opposed the divorce petition and contended that all above allegations were false; the plaintiff used to pressurized her to bring Rs.50,000/- from her parents; he was harassing her; he used to make allegations that she does not keep properly and he was always threatening to perform a second marriage; it is on this account, a report was lodged by her in Lalbaag police station. 2.3 The plaintiff examined himself as AW-1 and he also examined one Rameshar as AW-2. In rebuttal, the defendant examined herself as NAW-1 and one Ramnarayan as NAW-2. The Family Court recorded a finding that the plaintiff could not establish that he was treated with cruelty by the defendant, therefore, he was not entitled to a decree of divorce. 3. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, has argued that the findings are perverse and the Family Court ought to have granted a decree of divorce in favour of the plaintiff (husband). 4. On the other hand Mr. Sahu has opposed the above arguments. 5. We have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the records of the Family Court. 6. The fact in relation to marriage and lodging of the F.I.R. by defendant (wife) are not disputed. The Family Court has considered the entire evidence led by both the parties. We find from the evidence of Mahesh Kumar Sinha (AW-1) that after the last incident of 28.10.2002, a village Panchayat was called by the parents of the defendant and in the said Panchayat, according to the plaintiff, the defendant had made false allegations against him. The Family Court has considered the entire evidence led by both the parties. We find from the evidence of Mahesh Kumar Sinha (AW-1) that after the last incident of 28.10.2002, a village Panchayat was called by the parents of the defendant and in the said Panchayat, according to the plaintiff, the defendant had made false allegations against him. The Family Court has held that if the defendant was at fault, her parents would not have called village Panchayat for pacification. The above conduct of the defendant would show that she was always interested to lead a healthy life with the plaintiff, but the plaintiff was not agreeable to it. 7. Rameshar (AW-2) has also deposed that the village Panchayat was called by the defendant party because the plaintiff used to beat the defendant. In village Panchayat the defendant had said that the plaintiff used to beat her and treat her with cruelty by making various false allegations like she was unable to speak hindi, she does not know cooking etc., and he was always harassing her. The defendant (NAW-1) has also deposed all above facts on affidavit and nothing material could be brought in her cross-examination by the plaintiff side. 8. Ramnarayan (NAW-2) was a member of Sinha Samaj (community of the parties). He deposed that the father of the defendant had made complaint to them that his daughter (defendant) was being harassed by the family members of the plaintiff, therefore, a meeting (Panchayat) of the respectable persons was called. He was also present in the Panchayat. In Panchayat also, the plaintiff had made various allegations against the defendant. However, in the last, it was decided that now both the parties would remain together. In cross-examination, he deposed that even after the said decision in Panchayat, the defendant was beaten by the plaintiff in the same night, therefore, on the next morning, the defendant and other persons took a decision to lodge a report in police station. It appears that on account of pressure of the community people, the plaintiff agreed for compromise in Panchayat, however, he assaulted the defendant in the night and thereafter in the morning, the defendant had to leave the house of the plaintiff and had to lodge a report in the concerned police station. 9. It appears that on account of pressure of the community people, the plaintiff agreed for compromise in Panchayat, however, he assaulted the defendant in the night and thereafter in the morning, the defendant had to leave the house of the plaintiff and had to lodge a report in the concerned police station. 9. The learned Judge, Family Court, has considered the entire material available on record and has held that it was not established by the plaintiff that the defendant has treated him with cruelty and on this account a decree of divorce may be passed. The above finding appears to be fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record. The marital ties are not to be broken on trivial issues between husband and wife. Cruelty is a question of fact which has to be proved by quoting instances and leading positive evidence to prove those instances. Vague and general allegations against the behaviour of spouse may be uneasy for the other, but it may not amount to cruelty in law for passing a decree of divorce. Therefore, in all cases the Court has to weigh the evidence led by the parties and a positive finding with all satisfaction has to be recorded that the plaintiff was treated with cruelty by the defendant making him/her entitled to get a decree of divorce. 10. We find no justification to interfere with the above findings recorded by the Family Court. The appeal has no merits, the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 11. No cost. Appeal Dismissed.