Back
2025 Supreme(Chh) 254
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL, JJ.
Lokesh Chandra Katakwar, S/o. Shri Gangaram Katakwar – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sarita Katakwar, W/o. Shri Lokesh Chandra Katakwar – Respondent
FA(MAT) No. 311 of 2024
Decided On : 28-11-2025
For the Appellant :Mr. H.V. Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Mahendra Dubey, Advocate
The court ruled that allegations of cruelty in a divorce case must be proven conclusively; failure to establish such grounds warrants dismissal of the divorce petition.
Headnote:(A) Family Court Act, 1984 - Section 19(1) - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 28 and Section 13(1)(ia) - Divorce on grounds of cruelty - Appellant's suit dismissed as court found no merit in the claim of cruelty; burden of establishing grounds of cruelty rests on the petitioner. (Paras 1, 2, 4, 15)
(B) Mental Cruelty - The Supreme Court has enumerated instances that may constitute mental cruelty, emphasizing that the conduct must be severe enough to make it impossible for the parties to live together - Mere trivial irritations do not suffice. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant and respondent were married on 11/12/2020 and had a daughter on 07/10/2022. Matrimonial disputes arose, and allegations of abuse and threats were made by the appellant against the respondent, leading to a divorce suit.
Findings of Court:
The Family Court dismissed the suit, concluding that the appellant failed to prove cruelty.
Issues: The appeal questioned whether the Family Court correctly ruled that the appellant did not prove the ground of cruelty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant had not sufficiently demonstrated instances of cruelty as defined by law and that any alleged cruelty had been condoned by the appellant's actions.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Judgment :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19(1) of Family Court Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter, “the Act of 1955”), the appellant/plaintiff has preferred this appeal calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned judgment and decree dated 20/08/2024 passed in Civil Suit No. 96-A/2023 whereby learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty enumerated under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act of 1955 finding no merit.
2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop :-
(a) The marriage of appellant/plaintiff with respondent/defendant was solemnized on 11/12/2020 and they were blessed with a baby girl namely Surbhi on 07/10/2022. Thereafter, matrimonial dispute arose between them and it is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that he was abused and threatened by some unknown person by three sim numbers 9294820611, 8982615194 and 9303491037 which were obtained by the respondent/defendant in the social meeting held in Janjgir in November, 2022 wherein both the appellant/plaintiff and respondent/defendant were given understanding after which both of them again continued to live together as husband and wife. Thereafter, on 16/03/2023, respondent/defendant threatened the appellant/plaintiff to get him involved in a false dowry case and tonhi pratadna which led the appellant/plaintiff to file a complaint against the respondent/defendant before the SHO, Janjgir and on 19/03/2023, notice under Section 155 of CrPC was issued for non-cognizable offence and thereafter, on 29/03/2023, respondent/defendant left her matrimonial house and on 04/04/2023, the appellant/plaintiff filed application under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act of 1955 for dissolution of marriage.
(b) Respondent/defendant filed her written statement and apart from the admitted facts opposed the plaint averments stating inter alia that appellant/plaintiff entered into dispute with his brother Moolchand, therefore, he decided to live separately with the respondent/defendant and appellant/plaintiff wants to desert her and so he has filed false complaints against him, however, she still wishes to live with him, therefore, the suit filed by him be dismissed.
3. Learned Family Court framed the following two issues for determination and answered them as stated below :-
4. In sum and substance, learned Family Court, after consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, held that appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove and establish that respondent/defendant has cruelty to him and proceeded to dismiss the suit filed by him on the ground enumerated under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act of 1955.
5. Mr. H.V. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, would submit that the Family Court is absolutely unjustified in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff holding that the ground of cruelty has not been proved and established as the documents Ex. P/1 to P/3 would show that cruelty on the part of the respondent/defendant has duly been established. He would rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane AIR 1975 SC 1534 to buttress his submission.
6. Mr. Mahendra Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant, would support the impugned judgment and decree and submit that there is no cruelty at all on the part of the respondent/defendant and learned Family Court has rightly held that the fact of cruelty, if any, has been condoned by the appellant/plaintiff herein, as such, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.
8. The question for determination in this appeal is, “whether the Family Court is
