JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. Heard.

2. The present appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Principle Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in civil suit No.167-A of 2016, whereby a decree of divorce has been granted in favour of the husband under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of cruelty.

3. The facts of the case are that a petition seeking divorce was preferred by the husband. The parties were married on 24.2.2012 and out of the wedlock a child was born on 28.12.2013. It is contended by the husband that after the birth of the child, in a function named Chhatti at village Tulsi on 04.2.2014 some dispute took place in public and the wife started to demand to go back to her parental home on 05.2.2014. Despite all efforts made to stay her back she did not agree to it and an agreement Exhibit P2 was executed between them wherein she agreed that she does not want to stay with her husband and wanted to go back to her parental home. Husband further contended that during her stay in the matrimonial house, she used to abuse the family members of husband on trivial issues. He further contended that taking into consideration her behavior, the Doctor has advised her for psychiatric counselling, but, whenever she was advised to go for such counselling, she opposed it and abused & misbehaved with the family members of the husband, which amounts to cruelty. He further stated that from 05.2.2014 she was staying separately with her child and resuming the matrimonial ties would be difficult, as such, the prayer was made for decree of divorce.

4. The wife in reply came out with a defense that by exerting undue pressure, an agreement was executed on 05.2.2014 and got signed by her. In the circumstance, during the function in house she was forced to sign on a blank paper. Wife further contended that the only fault by her was that she wanted to go back to her parental home for 01-2 months after the delivery, at such point of time, she was forced to sign the stamp paper. Wife further contented that since her sister-in-law was the Sarpanch of the village, despite request made by her father, nobody came in support. She further stated that while she was being treated during her pregnancy and was taken to the Doctors, the husband used to misbehave in the public, for which he was advised by the Doctor to behave properly with wife during the pregnancy. She further stated that the execution of the alleged agreement on 05.2.2014 was done by keeping her father in captivity and she was forced to sign and without any reason she was forced to leave the matrimonial house. Because of the torture meted out to her by the husband and his family members, the husband is not entitled to a decree of divorce.

5. The learned Family Court, on the basis of the pleading framed the issue of cruelty and held it in the favour of the husband to hold that he is entitled for divorce. Hence, this appeal by the wife.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant / wife would submit that the agreement on which the respondent/ husband was banking upon, was outcome of a coercion and undue influence. Referring to the document Exhibit P2, she would submit that date of purchase of stamp paper is of 03.2.2014, i.e., before the date of the incident. She would further submit that this solitary incident would reflect that husband has pre-planned the entire conspiracy to create a case of desertion. She further would submit that learned Family Court failed to appreciate the statement made by her during her counselling that she exceeded to demand of Rs.10 Lacs, and also failed to appreciate that since the husband did not want to keep her and no alternate was left with her, therefore, the said statement was made and the same cannot be read in isolation. She would further submit that the entire reading of the statement of the wife would show that nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the grant of decree of divorce on the ground of crue