The main legal point established in the judgment is that allegations of cruelty and desertion in matrimonial matters must be proven based on the conduct and evidence presented, and the court should be inclined to preserve the matrimonial home and be cautious in granting divorce.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by the husband under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short “the Act, 1955”) challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.2.2019 passed in Civil Suit No.213-A/2015 by the Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, whereby, an application preferred by the appellant under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Act, 1955, for granting decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion, was dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 8.5.1970 according to the Hindu Rites and Rituals. After the 'Gauna' ceremony, the respondent-wife joined the company of the husband. The appellant alleged that after the marriage, he gave complete facilities to the wife to lead a comfortable life. As he started aging, the wife did not take care and support him and instead troubled and harassed him. Due to her such cruel behaviour, he is living separately from her. It is alleged that on 5.8.2011, the respondent along with her son kicked him out of his own house, which he has constructed and since then, he has no permanent residence to live. He has also made a report to the Police Station – Newai in this regard. He stated that since 5.8.2011, there is no relation between them; the respondent deserted, abused and misbehaved with him, therefore, it has become extremely difficult for him to live with her any longer. The respondent-wife has also preferred an application for maintenance before the Consultancy Department of Bhilai Steel Plant on 30.7.2012 and on the said application, a compromise was made and Rs.7000/- monthly maintenance was granted to the respondent on a condition that she will take no legal action against him without giving information to the Consultancy Department. However, the respondent contravened the said condition and on 20.4.2015, sent a legal notice to the appellant alleging that since the appellant is living with another woman, the amount of maintenance should be enhanced. The appellant replied to the notice and filed a suit seeking divorce on 8.5.2015. The respondent-wife denied the averments and stated that the appellant has developed illicit relationship with the wife of his younger brother namely Bholiya Bai and out of such illicit relationship, one son has born. After sometime, he left Bholiya Bai and kept another woman namely Sarawati Devi and out of such illicit relationship, one daughter was also born. On account of such acts of the appellant, the respondent suffered extreme mental stress and physical discomfort and a quarrel took place and thereafter, the appellant left her and started residing separately at village Durg with his concubine (Sarwaswati Devi) and her daughter. She stated that the appellant is working on the post of AGM and getting monthly salary of Rs.1 lakh and paying a very meagre amount of maintenance of Rs.7000/- to her, therefore, to enhance the amount of compensation, the notice was sent. It is alleged that due to misconduct of the appellant, she is suffering mentally and physically. It is stated by the wife that inspite of all this, she is ready to live with the appellant, but the appellant himself is not willing to keep her. She stated that the appellant has filed the suit for divorce pleading false and baseless facts, hence, it was prayed that the appeal of the appellant be dismissed.

3. On the basis of the averments made by the parties, the issues were framed and after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Family Court decided all the issues in negative and held that the appellant failed to prove the grounds of cruelty and desertion and hence, dismissed the suit.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and the evidence with utmost circumspection.

5. In the present case, the appellant has examined himself as PW-1 Rejji Kumar as PW-2, Pradeep Kumar as PW-3 (the F