Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 73 (CHH)

Prashant Jha S/o Rajendra Jha v. Isha Jha, W/o Prashant Jha

2025-01-31

NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, RAJANI DUBEY

body2025
Judgment ; (Rajani Dubey, J.) Challenge in this appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is to the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2023 passed by First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in H.M.A. No.895/2019 whereby the application under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the appellant/applicant has been dismissed. 02. The admitted fact in this case is that marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized on 10.6.2017 as per Hindu rites and rituals. 03. The appellant filed an application under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with the averments that after marriage, the respondent lived with him for 2 ½ months at Village-Pirda and thereafter started insisting on joining coaching class in Bilaspur whereas it was agreed between the parties before marriage that the respondent would live at her matrimonial home as a homemaker and discharge her marital obligations. However, in September 2017 she left her matrimonial home without informing the appellant or her in-laws and went to Khairagarh and from there to Bilaspur for joining coaching classes. She returned from Bilaspur to Khairagarh in April, 2018. Despite much persuasion to come back, she agreed on the condition that he has to live separately with her in Raipur and with the hope of improvement in her behaviour with the passage of time, he agreed and took her back to Village-Pirda. However, after about 20-25 days she joined a coaching class in Raipur and would come to Raipur with the appellant for her coaching. As the appellant was a doctor in Narayan Hospital, Raipur they would commute together from Pirda to Raipur i.e. about 13-14 km. On 20.8.2018 the respondent told the appellant that today she is staying in Raipur and when he asked as to where and with whom she is staying, she did not reply and switched off the mobile. She is a woman of perverted mentality. When he informed about this to her mother, she threatened him of false implication in a criminal case and sending them to jail if he puts any restriction on her. She is a woman of perverted mentality. When he informed about this to her mother, she threatened him of false implication in a criminal case and sending them to jail if he puts any restriction on her. Being fed up with the cruel conduct and mental perversity of the respondent, the appellant and his family members on 11.9.2018 made a complaint to Mahila Cell, Bemetara where during counseling the respondent also expressed her unwillingness to live in joint family at a rural area and desire to get a job as per her qualification. She deliberately remained absent during counseling and filed complaint against the appellant and his family members on false grounds with Mahila Thana, Raipur. Considering her conduct, the Mahila Cell, Bemetara dropped the counseling proceedings with the conclusion that the appellant is totally committed to the respondent. 04. It was further averred by the appellant that he made all possible efforts to bring her back and hence filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before Family Court, Bemetara where the respondent with malafide intention entered into compromise with him for living together in Raipur. However, even during the period 22.4.2019 to 5.5.2019 while they were living in Professor Colony, Raipur in a rented accommodation, her conduct towards him was disrespectful and cruel. On 5.5.2019 she left the said house after locking the door and did not receive his phone calls. Hence being fed up with the cruel conduct and mental perversity of the respondent and there being no hope of reunion, the appellant prayed for grant of a decree on the ground of cruelty. 05. In her written statement, the respondent stated that she was not given due respect in her matrimonial home, her husband and his parents used to taunt her that the appellant is a doctor by profession, so she should also do some job. The appellant was earlier posted in Bilaspur, therefore, he got her admitted in Bilaspur based coaching center where they lived for three months. She would come to her matrimonial home on festivals. When the appellant refused to give her money, all of her expenses were borne by her mother. In fact she was being treated with cruelty by the appellant and his family members but she tolerated all this with the hope of improvement in the situation with passage of time. She would come to her matrimonial home on festivals. When the appellant refused to give her money, all of her expenses were borne by her mother. In fact she was being treated with cruelty by the appellant and his family members but she tolerated all this with the hope of improvement in the situation with passage of time. However, their behaviour towards her and her family members worsened. She never went to her parental house without permission of her in-laws. The appellant is stubborn, he wants to get rid of her anyhow and on his influence, the officers of Mahila Cell, Bemetara were also biased against her. She never committed any physical or mental cruelty to the appellant. She stated that she wants to go back to her matrimonial home and therefore, the present application for divorce be rejected. 06. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Family Court framed issues and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, rejected the application of the appellant by the impugned judgment and decree. Hence this appeal. 07. The appellant appearing in person would submit that the impugned judgment and decree are illegal and based on conjecture and surmises. From the conduct of the respondent it is explicit that the respondent is living separately without any just and reasonable cause since September, 2017. She deliberately deprived the appellant of marital happiness which amounts to cruelty. He submitted that she used to stay at unknown places with unknown people for long without informing him and his parents. On being informed about the conduct of the respondent to her parents, they would threaten the appellant of false implication in criminal case if he put any restriction on her. In January, 2019 the appellant's grandmother was admitted in ICU and despite being informed about it and even after her demise, neither the respondent nor any of her family members visited the appellant's house to offer condolences and support. Rather during this period, the respondent intentionally facilitated marriage of her brother Sudhesh Jha. 08. The appellant further submitted that he tried all his level best to keep her with him but she refused on one pretext or the other. During counseling proceedings in Mahila Cell, Raipur also she expressed her unwillingness to live in a joint family in rural area and deliberately avoided appearing in the counseling on many occasions. 08. The appellant further submitted that he tried all his level best to keep her with him but she refused on one pretext or the other. During counseling proceedings in Mahila Cell, Raipur also she expressed her unwillingness to live in a joint family in rural area and deliberately avoided appearing in the counseling on many occasions. However, looking to her conduct, the counseling proceedings were ultimately dropped with a conclusion that the appellant/husband is fully committed to the respondent/wife. This fact also proves cruelty on the part of the respondent. Even on her insistence while he was living with her in a rented accommodation in Raipur, her conduct towards him remained cruel and disrespectful. She intentionally sent a notice to reclaim the unpaid amount under Section 125(3) of CrPC to his workplace with a view to tarnishing his image among his colleagues and staff members of the institution, thereby causing social humiliation and damage to his reputation whereas she was well aware of his permanent address. 09. During the proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC, the respondent in her cross-examination admitted that she did not put vermilion on her hair parting and also not wear mangalsutra, meaning thereby she does not consider the appellant as her husband and has deserted him. She made false allegations of assault against the appellant and his relatives. Thus, looking to the conduct of the respondent in light of overall evidence on record, the learned Family Court was not justified in rejecting the application for divorce of the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgment dated 13.12.1999 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of BK Narayan Pillai Vs.Pararneswaran Pillai and another; Smt. Archana Sharma Vs. Muksh Kumar Sharma, AIR 2015 (NOC) 673 (All.); judgment dated 17.9.2020 of Gauhati High Court in Review Pet. No.73/2020 in the matter of Smit Renu Das Vs. Sri Bhaskar Das; order dated 25.2.2022 of this Court in FAM No.24/2018 in the matter of Navodit Mishra Vs. Smt. Richa Mishra; judgment dated 1.5.2023 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (Civil) No.1118/2014 in the matter of ShilpaSailesh Vs. Varun Sreenivasan ; the judgment dated 27.9.2023 of High Court of Karnataka in Misc. F.A. No.104251/2017 and the judgment dated 13.9.2023 of High Court of Delhi in Mat. App. (F.C.) 236/2018 and CM Appl. 38556/2018. 10. Smt. Richa Mishra; judgment dated 1.5.2023 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (Civil) No.1118/2014 in the matter of ShilpaSailesh Vs. Varun Sreenivasan ; the judgment dated 27.9.2023 of High Court of Karnataka in Misc. F.A. No.104251/2017 and the judgment dated 13.9.2023 of High Court of Delhi in Mat. App. (F.C.) 236/2018 and CM Appl. 38556/2018. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supporting the impugned judgment and decree would submit that upon proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence the learned Family Court rightly recorded a finding that no physical or mental cruelty was committed by the respondent to the appellant and as such, he is not entitled for any decree of divorce. The appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the matters of Amina Vs. Hassan Koye, 1985 LawSuit (Ker) 59; S. Hanumantha Rao Vs. S. Ramani, (1999) 3 SCC 620 ; Savitri Pandey Vs. Prem Chandra Pandey, (2002) 2 SCC 73 ; Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Manju Sharma, (2009) 6 SCC 379 ; Neelam Kumar Vs. Dayarani, (2010) 13 SCC 298 and Gurbux Singh Vs. Harminder Kaur, (2010) 14 SCC 301 11. Heard the appellant in person and learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the material available on record. 12. It is an admitted position in this case that the respondent is legally wedded wife of the appellant and their marriage was solemnized on 10.6.2017 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Learned Family Court based on the pleased of the respective parties framed following issues for adjudication: 13. As per the appellant/husband (PW-1), he is living with his parents at Village-Pirda near Raipur but the respondent/wife was not willing to live with his parents in rural area and on the pretext of joining coaching classes she went to her parental house in Khairagarh and from there to Bilaspur. As the appellant was a doctor in Narayan Hospital, Raipur they would commute together from Pirda to Raipur. However, on 20.8.2018 the respondent told the appellant that today she is staying in Raipur and when he asked as to where and with whom she is staying, she did not reply and switched off the mobile. She is a woman of perverted mentality. However, on 20.8.2018 the respondent told the appellant that today she is staying in Raipur and when he asked as to where and with whom she is staying, she did not reply and switched off the mobile. She is a woman of perverted mentality. When he informed her mother about it over mobile phone, her mother threatened him that they would falsely implicate them in a case and send them to jail if he put any restriction on her daughter. Thereafter, he made a complaint on 11.9.2018 to Mahila Cell, Bemetara where during counseling also she stated that she is not willing to live in her matrimonial home, she is unable to adjust in rural environment and wish to do a job as per her qualification. The said proceedings were ultimately dropped with a conclusion that the appellant/husband is fully devoted to the respondent/wife whereas her conduct is not proper towards the appellant and his family members, she is irresponsible towards them and is not physically and emotionally attached to her husband. The appellant/husband states that he made all possible efforts to keep her with him and also filed an application for restitution of conjugal right before Family Court, Bemetara where she appeared and on the basis of compromise he withdrew the said application and consequently, they started living separately in Professor Colony, Raipur in a rented house. However, while living there from 22.4.2019 to 5.5.2019 her conduct was rude to him; she used to humiliate him on every trivial issue and would threaten him of sending to jail by lodging a false case. On 5.5.2019 she went away having locked the door of the rented house and did not receive his calls. When the appellant made a call to the landlord, he informed him that she has gone somewhere and asked him to go back to village. 14. In cross-examination he admits that he did not want the respondent/wife to do any job after marriage and wanted her to live with him in the village only. However, he denied the suggestion that dispute arose between them as she wanted to continue her studies even after marriage and clarifies that the dispute arose because she deserted him. In para 21 he admits that he has not filed any document or medical prescription regarding mental status of the respondent. 15. However, he denied the suggestion that dispute arose between them as she wanted to continue her studies even after marriage and clarifies that the dispute arose because she deserted him. In para 21 he admits that he has not filed any document or medical prescription regarding mental status of the respondent. 15. PW-2 Rajendra Jha, father of the appellant, has also supported the statement of the appellant. In cross-examination he admits that since marriage they wanted the respondent to live in village. He admits that counseling proceedings were held twice between the appellant and the respondent in Bemetara. On being asked by the court whether they would keep the respondent with them if she is still willing to live with the appellant to discharge her marital obligations, he (PW-2) replied that it is up to the appellant as they have already made enough attempts earlier. 16. PW-3 Smt. Anjana Jha, mother of the appellant, also supported the statement of the appellant. However, she admits in para 15 that the respondent never raised any dispute or misbehaved with them, initially she was unconformable in rural life but gradually she was adjusting herself to it. It is worthwhile to mention here that the learned Family Court appreciated this statement of mother-in-law of the respondent and found that the appellant failed to prove that the respondent committed any mental or physical cruelty to him. However, it is clear from the statement of the respondent/wife that she admitted the fact that after return from her in-laws' house she used to go to Raipur and that on 20.8.2018 she went to Raipur by Activa (scooty) and stayed at Danganiya Girls Hostel with Sunidhi Sharma and Sahani Dewangan and on 21.8.2018 she did not return to her matrimonial home and went to the house of sister of Anita Meshram in Gwalior for appearing in the railway examination. She admits that though her husband/appellant wanted to accompany her to Gwalior but she went all alone. She admits that during counseling in Bemetara in Mahila Cell she gave statement that she is feeling uncomfortable in rural environment and finding it difficult to adjust herself in such environment. She admitted that she gave statement that she has no grievance as against her husband and in-laws. She admits that during counseling in Bemetara in Mahila Cell she gave statement that she is feeling uncomfortable in rural environment and finding it difficult to adjust herself in such environment. She admitted that she gave statement that she has no grievance as against her husband and in-laws. She admits to have given this statement that the environment of city is different from that of the village and she is not acquainted with the life style of village, therefore, she is at present not living with her husband at her matrimonial home. She admits that she was absent in the second counseling at Mahila Thana, Bemetara. She also admits that the appellant had filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights before Family Court, Bemetara and that from Bemetara Court she would go back to her parental house with her mother and sometimes to Raipur. In para 47 of her cross-examination she states as under: 17. She also admits that while living in the house at Professor Colony, the appellant used to beat and abuse her but she did not make any complaint about it to the police. On being asked as to where she got medical treatment of her frequent illness, she replied that since her husband is a doctor, why she would get treatment elsewhere. She admits that due to thyroid she has deficiency of calcium, iron, hemoglobin and her blood pressure is low and she has been taking medicines for it and also getting thyroid test done every three months. However, she expressed her inability to produce medical bills for her treatment in the last year. She admits that no report regarding torture by the appellant and his relatives was made by her to the police. She admits that since 5.5.2019 she has not gone to her matrimonial home. 18. Learned trial Court only appreciated the statement of mother-in- law of the respondent but did not appreciate the admission of the respondent. From the statements of both the parties it is explicit that from the very beginning the respondent/wife was not willing to live with the appellant in matrimonial home in the village and her behaviour was very abnormal. She admits that on 20.8.2018 she went to Raipur and stayed there. From the statements of both the parties it is explicit that from the very beginning the respondent/wife was not willing to live with the appellant in matrimonial home in the village and her behaviour was very abnormal. She admits that on 20.8.2018 she went to Raipur and stayed there. As per her husband when he asked her over mobile phone as to where and with whom she is staying there, she did not reply and switched off the mobile. She also admitted that in August, 2018 some elderly people of the society had come to her house and to honour them she went to her matrimonial home. She also admits that no one from her parental house went to her matrimonial home for discussion. The evidence on record also goes to show that the appellant/husband made all possible endeavours to keep her with him and in this process he filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights but the respondent/wife always neglected him and refused to live with him saying that she does not want to live in rural area or in a joint family. 19. This Court in the matter of Navodit Mishra (supra) observed and held in paras 20, 21, 23, 24 & 25 of its order as under: "20. In case of Ramchander vs. Ananta reported in (2015) 11 SCC 539 Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the ground of cruelty raised in an application filed by husband seeking divorce has held thus:- "10. The expression 'cruelty' has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13 (1) (i-a) is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards the other, which causes a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Cruelty can be physical or mental. In the present case there is no allegation of physical cruelty alleged by the plaintiff. What is alleged is mental cruelty and it is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. Cruelty can be physical or mental. In the present case there is no allegation of physical cruelty alleged by the plaintiff. What is alleged is mental cruelty and it is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. It is settled law that the instances of cruelty are not to be taken in isolation but to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the plaintiff has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other spouse. In the decision in Samar Ghosh case (supra), this Court set out illustrative cases where inference of 'mental cruelty' can be drawn and they are only illustrative and not exhaustive." 21. Aforementioned rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court indicate what is mental cruelty and what would be consideration to accept the plea of mental cruelty. Mental cruelty and its effect cannot be calculated in arithmetical manner, it varies from individual to individual; society to society and also from status of person. Agonised feeling or for that matter of sense of disappointment can take place by certain acts causing a grievous dent at mental level. Inference has to be drawn from the attending circumstances. 23. Marital relationship is a relationship of trust, respect and emotions. After marriage each spouse is having marital responsibilities and duties towards each other. From the facts, as appearing in record, as also evidence of respondent wife, it is apparent that from August, 2010 there was no relationship as husband and wife between two, which is sufficient to draw an inference that there was no physical relationship between them. Physical relationship between husband and wife is one of the important part for healthy married life. Denial of physical relationship to a spouse by other amounts to cruelty. Hence, we are of the view that appellant was treated with cruelty by respondent wife. 24. Another aspect of the case, as is appearing from evidence of respondent wife, is that respondent joined service in the year 2011 without any information and knowledge of appellant. She admitted that though job and post on which she is working is inter-district transferable post, but she never applied for her transfer from District Bemetara to District Bilaspur. 24. Another aspect of the case, as is appearing from evidence of respondent wife, is that respondent joined service in the year 2011 without any information and knowledge of appellant. She admitted that though job and post on which she is working is inter-district transferable post, but she never applied for her transfer from District Bemetara to District Bilaspur. In concluding paragraph of her deposition, she has stated that she does not want to leave her job; appellant could not come to Bemetara after selling his house, land etc., which is one of causes of differences/dispute between them. Respondent also admitted that appellant asked her to do job in Bilaspur and not in Bemetara. In the evidence of respondent it has nowhere come that she wanted to come to Bilaspur and reside with appellant; she had also made all attempts and endeavour for the same. Evidence of respondent reflects that her intention is to live in Bemetara only. Parties are Brahmin by caste, as per social tradition, after marriage it is wife who has to come and reside at the place of her husband along with her in-laws. Respondent also after her marriage came to Bilaspur but now she does not want to leave her parents' place ie. Bemetara. Making of one line statement that she wants to continue her marital relationship with appellant husband, will not be sufficient when from her conduct/behaviour it is not appearing that she actually intended for the same. 25. For the foregoing discussions and in light of above mentioned rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that appellant has made out a case for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside. Application filed by appellant under Section 13 (1) of the Act of 1955 is allowed. The marriage dated 25.11.2007 between appellant and respondent stands dissolved. Decree be drawn-up accordingly. No order as to costs." 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shilpa Sailesh (supra) held in para 33 of its judgment as under: "33. Application filed by appellant under Section 13 (1) of the Act of 1955 is allowed. The marriage dated 25.11.2007 between appellant and respondent stands dissolved. Decree be drawn-up accordingly. No order as to costs." 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shilpa Sailesh (supra) held in para 33 of its judgment as under: "33. Having said so, we wish to clearly state that grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage by this Court is not a matter of right, but a discretion which is to be exercised with great care and caution, keeping in mind several factors ensuring that 'complete Justice is done to both parties. It is obvious that this Court should be fully convinced and satisfied that the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead and beyond salvation and, therefore, dissolution of marriage is the right solution and the only way forward. That the marriage has irretrievably broken down is to be factually determined and firmly established. For this, several factors are to be considered such as the period of time the parties had cohabited after marriage; when the parties had last cohabited; the nature of allegations made by the parties against each other and their family members; the orders passed in the legal proceedings from time to time, cumulative impact on the personal relationship; whether, and how many attempts were made to settle the disputes by intervention of the court or through mediation, and when the last attempt was made, etc. The period of separation should be sufficiently long, and anything above six years or more will be a relevant factor. But these facts have to be evaluated keeping in view the economic and social status of the parties, including their educational qualifications, whether the parties have any children, their age, educational qualification, and whether the other spouse and children are dependent, in which event how and in what manner the party seeking divorce intends to take care and provide for the spouse or the children. Question of custody and welfare of minor children, provision for fair and adequate alimony for the wife, and economic rights of the children and other pending matters, if any, are relevant considerations. We would not like to codify the factors so as to curtail exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, which is situation specific. Question of custody and welfare of minor children, provision for fair and adequate alimony for the wife, and economic rights of the children and other pending matters, if any, are relevant considerations. We would not like to codify the factors so as to curtail exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, which is situation specific. Some of the factors mentioned can be taken as illustrative, and worthy of consideration." 21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Narendra v. K. Meena reported in (2016) 9 SCC 455 had observed that it is not a common practice or desirable culture for a Hindu son in India to get separated from the parents upon getting married at the instance of the wife. The son, brought up and given education by his parents has a moral and legal obligation to take care and maintain the parents when they become old and when they have either no income or have a meagre income. In India, generally people do not subscribe to the western thought, where upon getting married or attaining majority; the son gets separated from the family. In normal circumstances, the wife is expected to be a part of the family of the husband after her marriage. She becomes integral to and forms part of the family and husband and normally without any justifiable strong reason, she should never insist that her husband should get separated from the family and live with her separately. The persistent efforts of respondent wife to constrain the husband to be separated from his family without any justifiable reason would be torturous for him and would constitute an act of cruelty. 22. In light of above decisions, it is clear that act of the respondent/wife in the present case is such which amounts to cruelty to the husband. She admitted that she is not willing to live at her matrimonial home at Village-Pirda where parents of the husband reside. Her behaviour is also abnormal. She made no efforts to come back to her matrimonial home. Admittedly, she has been living separately since 2019. The appellant filed application for divorce only on the ground of cruelty before the Family Court on 11.9.2019 i.e. before two years of desertion but it is clear that behaviour of the respondent/wife has been abnormal and negligent towards her husband and she never tried to live with him peacefully. Admittedly, she has been living separately since 2019. The appellant filed application for divorce only on the ground of cruelty before the Family Court on 11.9.2019 i.e. before two years of desertion but it is clear that behaviour of the respondent/wife has been abnormal and negligent towards her husband and she never tried to live with him peacefully. Learned Family Court did not appreciate the admission of the wife in her written statement as well as her evidence. Though she stated to be suffering from various ailments but no medical document to substantiate it has been filed. From para 15 of her cross-examination it is clear that she admitted that her husband has not converted to any other religion, not renounced their marriage and he is not suffering from any disease. However, she volunteers that he is a mental patient. Thus, from the conduct of the respondent/wife it is quite clear that she is not attached to her husband emotionally. It goes without saying that marital relationship is a relationship of trust, respect and emotions and after marriage each spouse is having marital responsibilities and duties towards each other. However, in the present case, it is admission of the wife that while both of them were living in rented house in Raipur, she changed the lock of the house and got a phone call from her landlord. Thus, allegation of the husband in para 7 of his affidavit is admitted by the respondent/wife that on 5.5.2019 she went away having locked the door of rented accommodation, the landlord informed that she has gone away and asked him to go back to village and that he consistently made efforts to contact his wife and her family members but failed. 23. Looking to the statement of the husband and admission of the wife, keeping in view the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, we're of the view that the appellant has successfully made out a case for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty but the learned Family Court did not properly appreciate the evidence in its entirety and gave an erroneous finding on the issues framed. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree being contrary to law and material available on record are liable to be set aside. 24. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree being contrary to law and material available on record are liable to be set aside. 24. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 22.11.2023 passed by First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in H.M.A. No.895/2019 are hereby set aside. Consequently, marriage of the appellant with the respondent solemnized on 10.6.2017 stands dissolved from the date of passing of this judgment. As regards permanent alimony, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the socio-economic status of the parties and the fact that the respondent/wife is a well educated lady, it is directed that the appellant/husband shall pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs as permanent alimony to the respondent/wife within a period of two months from today. A decree be drawn up accordingly.