IMPORTANT POINT
False accusations leading to criminal trials and subsequent acquittals can amount to mental cruelty, causing irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

JUDGMENT :

Radhakishan Agrawal, J.

1. Since both the appeals involve similar question of facts and law, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Appellant-Husband preferred a civil suit before the learned Family Court for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1)(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act, 1955'), whereas respondent- wife herein has also preferred a civil suit before the learned Family Court for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act, 1955. Both the civil suits were registered as Civil Suit H.M.A. Case No.8- A/2012 (Jitendra Chandrakar vs Namita @ Bhawna Chandrakar) and another as Civil Suit H.M.A. Case No.30-A/2012 (Smt. Namita Chandrakar vs Jitendra Chandrakar). Vide impugned judgment and decree dated 25.09.2019, the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, C.G., rejected the Civil Suit H.M.A. Case No.8-A/2012 filed by the appellant- Husband whereas the Civil Suit H.M.A. Case No.30-A/2012 filed by respondent-wife was allowed by 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur while decreeing the suit in her favour.

3. Being aggrieved by the said impugned judgments dated 25.09.2019 & 09.07.2018, the appellant-husband herein preferred these appeals seeking decree of divorce in his favour while praying for setting aside the decree passed in favour of respondent-wife for restitution of conjugal rights.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.05.2010, marriage of the appellant-husband was solemnized with the respondent-wife according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. Prior to marriage, appellant- husband was well aware about the financial status of the family of the respondent-wife, due to which, he himself borne all the expenses in the marriage ceremony. It is further pleaded that after 8 days of marriage, father of appellant saw the respondent/wife with one man namely Shekhar Chandrakar in the garden during morning walk and he informed the same to appellant. It is also pleaded by him that even after marriage, respondent-wife used to talk with Shekhar Chandrakar. It is further averred by appellant that as he is a government employee, so he requested the respondent-wife to accompany him and reside at Mahasamund, but the respondent-wife refused to join the company of the appellant by making false pretext of taking coaching of CMO examination and studying at some university and ultimately left the matrimonial house and started living at her brother's house at Bhagat Singh Chowk Tikrapara. Thereafter, appellant came to know that respondent-wife had already taken the admission at C.V. Raman University, Kota and to avoid a dispute, he has also voluntarily paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- as her fee. He has also averred that on several times, he has requested the respondent-wife to reside with him, but the respondent-wife was unwilling and not ready to leave Bilaspur. It is contended by him that one friend of the respondent-wife informed him that respondent-wife is having an illegal affair with one Shekhar Chandrakar and when he asked about the same to respondent-wife, she assured him that she would not repeat such mistake in future. It is also contended by him that he tried his level best to live with the respondent-wife, but she never agreed to live with him wherever he is posted and ultimately she started harassing him and his family members and also used to threat of dire consequences of involving them in false complaints. Thereafter, he informed the same to Mahila Police Station and Superintendent of Police and an application was also filed by him before the community and in the said community meeting, respondent-wife asked the appellant to prove her adultery and was leading adultery life, despite that she used to demand money from him. On these grounds, the appellant prayed for grant of decree of divorce in his favour.

5. In reply, respondent-wife, while admitting the factum of marriage with the appellant-husband on 23.05.2010, denied