SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Chh) 181

IN TGE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ.
Lileshwar Kurre, S/o Saheb Ram Kurre – Appellant
Versus
Preetibala Kurre, W/o Lileshwar Kurre – Respondent
FA(MAT) No. 30 of 2021
Decided On :   13-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant :Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent:Mr. Prashant Dansena, Advocate

The court established that a spouse's long-term separation and failure to reconcile can constitute grounds for divorce based on cruelty and desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Headnote:

(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 9 and 13 - Restitution of conjugal rights and divorce - The Family Court allowed the wife's application for restitution of conjugal rights, while the husband's application for divorce was dismissed. The husband appealed, arguing that the wife had deserted him and committed cruelty. The court found that the wife had failed to prove her case for restitution and that the husband had established grounds for divorce based on cruelty and desertion. (Paras 2, 11, 34, 35)

(B) Legal principles - The court emphasized that mere lodging of complaints does not constitute cruelty unless it is proven to be malicious or without basis. The court also noted that the wife's failure to attempt reconciliation and her long-term separation from the husband were significant factors. (Paras 30, 34)

(C)

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the husband had proven his case for divorce, and the judgments of the Family Court were set aside. (Paras 34, 35)

(D)

Issues: The main issues included whether the wife had committed cruelty and whether the husband was entitled to a decree of divorce. (Paras 34) (E)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the wife's actions constituted cruelty and desertion, justifying the husband's request for divorce. (Paras 34) (F)

Result: Both appeals allowed; the marriage is dissolved, and the husband is ordered to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as permanent alimony. (Paras 35, 36)

Judgment :

(Rajani Dubey, J.)

1. Since the parties in both the cases are same, therefore, both the appeals are being heard together and are decided by this common judgment.

2. The appeal i.e. FA(MAT) No.30/2021 has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2021 passed by learned Family Court, Balod (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 40-A/2016 whereby the application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent/wife has been allowed and decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been passed in favour of the respondent/wife.

3. The appeal i.e. FAM No. 119/2016 has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.05.2016 passed by learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Link Court/Family Court , Balod in Civil Suit No. 23- A/2010 whereby the application filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the appellant/husband for grant of divorce, has been dismissed.

4. In FA(MAT) No. 30/2021 - Admitted facts of the case are that the marriage between the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife was solemnized on 27.04.2007 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals and they have been blessed with a daughter who is aged about 13 years.

5. The brief facts of the case as have been pleaded by the wife before the Family Court, are that after marriage, wife lived at her in-law’s Village- Khairidih, Tehsil- Daundilohara, District- Balod for about 7 months and started living her marital life. After some time of marriage, her husband and his family members started harassing her and raising dispute. During her pregnancy also, they harassed her. It is also pleaded that at the time of her pregnancy, her husband left her with her parents and has never taken care of her. On 11-06-2008, her daughter was born who is presently residing with her. She wants to reside with her husband. Therefore, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights may be passed in her favour.

6. The non-applicant/appellant, in turn admitting the applicant/respondent as his wife and denying all adverse allegations made in the application contended that the applicant/wife herself left the company of the non- applicant/husband and started residing with her parents. She lodged report under Section 498-A of I.P.C. against the non-applicant and his family members, however they were acquitted by the learned trial Court of the alleged charge. Against the said acquittal, the appeal filed by the applicant/wife has also been dismissed by the learned Sessions Court. The applicant had also filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which has also been dismissed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court. Earlier, the non-applicant/husband had filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights, but the applicant has put the condition that if he left his parents, then only she is ready to reside with him. Thereafter, the non-applicant/husband has withdrawn his application. Subsequently, he has filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955, for grant of decree of divorce, which has been dismissed by the learned Family Court and an appeal is pending before this Court. Further, the wife filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance before this Court and the same has also been dismissed by this Court.

It is also submitted by the non-applicant that after about 8 years from residing separately from her husband, she filed the instant application. During this period, she made various efforts to harass the non-applicant/ husband by making various complaints to the police station. She pressurized him to left his parents and forced him to live as Ghar Jamai. She also doubted about his character. Looking to her behavior and attitude with him, their residing together is not possible and he prayed for dismissal of her application. He made various efforts and went to Amapara, Balod, to bring her

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top