Long-term separation and acquittal from false allegations can constitute mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, justifying divorce.

Judgment :

(Rajani Dubey J.)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/husband against the judgment and decree dated 17.08.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.55-A/2022, whereby the appellant’s application seeking divorce has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed application under Section 13 (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Family Court stating therein that marriage between the appellant/husband and respondent/wife was solemnized as per hindu rites and rituals on 28.04.2009 at Dhamtari, out of this wedlock, two daughters were born. First daughter namely Disha was born on 14.12.2010 and second daughter Harishita was born on 09.04.2014. It was alleged that from the very beginning that the wife used to quarrel with the appellant on living separately from appellant’s parents. On 10.04.2017, she even lodged FIR against the appellant and his family members under Section 498-A of IPC, but all the family members were acquitted by the learned Trial Court in a criminal case registered against them. Thereafter the appellant husband preferred an application before the learned Family Court seeking divorce, which has been rejected vide impugned judgment and decree. Hence the present appeal has been filed by the appellant husband.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment and decree is erroneous in law and facts both and the same is liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court did not appreciate the fact that the criminal case was lodged by the respondent wife against the appellant and his family members and they all have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court. The respondent wife has committed cruelty upon the appellant and his family members from the very beginning on the ground that she wants to live separately from the appellant’s parents. He further submits that after dismissal of the criminal case against the appellant and his family members, the respondent wife filed acquittal appeals, which too were dismissed by the learned Trial Court, against which she again filed criminal appeal and thereafter criminal revision before this Court, which too have been dismissed, as such it is crystal clear that the respondent wife has committed cruelty and harassment upon the appellant and his family members, but all these aspects of the matter have been ignored by the learned Family Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matters of Rani Narasimha Sastry vs Rani Suneela Rani, reported in (2020) 18 SCC 247, Raj Talreja vs Kavita Talreja, passed in Civil Appeal No.10719/2013, decided on 24.04.2017 and the judgments passed by this Court in the matters of Koman Lal Sahu vs Smt. Sushila Sahu passed in FAM No.51/2016, decided on 01.08.2022 and Satpal Singh vs Smt. Preeti Pahuja, passed in FA (MAT) No.238/2022 decided on 18.06.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court and submits that the learned Family Court has minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and rightly rejected the decree of divorce in favour of the appellant husband. The judgment is well merited and does not call for any interference.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.

6. Before the learned Trial Court, the husband examined himself and one witness Padmini Dewangan and wife examined herself and his uncle Vijay Kumar Sahu. The appellant husband filed various documents from Ex-P/1 to Ex-P/13 and stated that the wife lodged FIR against him under Section 498-A of IPC. The respondent wife also admitted this fact that she lodged FIR against the husband and she also admitted that her father-in-law is aged about 75 years and mother-in-law is aged about 70 years and their elder daught