HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD, JJ.
Anil Kumar Sonmani @ Anil Swami S/o Late Rajendra - Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Shradha Tiwari (Sonmani) W/o Anil Kumar Sonmani - Respondent
FA(MAT) No. 316 of 2023
Decided On : 18-08-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal under hindu marriage act dismissed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. non-applicant-wife's absence at trial. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. evidence submitted by applicant-husband. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. witness statement corroborates appellant's claims. (Para 9) |
| 5. legal arguments against family court's dismissal. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. questions regarding cruelty and desertion. (Para 12) |
| 7. definition of mental cruelty. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 8. impossibility of reunification supports divorce. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 9. behavior of respondent substantiates mental cruelty and desertion. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 10. legal definition and elements of desertion. (Para 19 , 21) |
| 11. evidence of continued separation justifies divorce. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 12. final decree of divorce granted. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
Judgment :
Per, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.
1. This first appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by the appellant-husband against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2023, passed by the learned Additional Third Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg District Durg (C.G.) in H.M.A. No. 905/2022, whereby the learned Family Court dismissed the suit/application filed by the appellant-husband under Section 13(1) (1-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
2. Parties are herein referred to their original status as in the trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant-husband and non-applicant-wife was solemnized on 26/12/1996 according to Hindu rituals and customs at Sector-6, Bhilai. After the marriage, both parties maintained their conjugal rights and were blessed with two children, a daughter namely Phalguni, aged about 19 years, and a son namely Aniket, aged about 16 years. According to the plaint, disputes arose between the parties after some years of marriage, during which the non- applicant allegedly began threatening to live separately. The non- applicant, who obtained a Ph.D degree and secured a position as a principal in Kurud with the applicant’s assistance, is said to have changed her behavior, becoming proud of her position and frequently quarreling over trivial matters, taunting the applicant regarding his job. During the COVID-19 pandemic, when the applicant’s income ceased, the non-applicant allegedly verbally abused him, calling him unemployed and demanding unnecessary things which the applicant could not fulfill, thereby subjecting him to cruelty. On 02/08/2020, the non-applicant left the matrimonial home with their daughter and went to her sister’s house, taking her belongings along. The applicant, along with his son, visited the non-applicant’s sister’s home on 08/08/2020 to bring her back, but she refused and allegedly ousted the applicant after a quarrel. Despite several efforts by the applicant, the non-applicant did not return. After about a month, the non-applicant returned with the applicant but left again after five days on 16/09/2020, leaving a letter stating that she is leaving the matrimonial home of her own will and intended to sever all relations with the applicant and her son, Aniket. Since 16/09/2020, the non-applicant has deserted the applicant without sufficient reason, prompting him to inform the Mahila Cell at Sector-6, Bhilai. The applicant and his son made multiple attempts to contact the non-applicant, who has not responded to calls, leading the applicant to file for dissolution of the marriage.
4. The record reveals that the non-applicant-wife was duly served with summons and the paper publication was also made. Despite service, she did not appear before the Family Court on any of the dates of hearing. The matter was adjourned on multiple occasions, but the non-applicant failed to avail herself of those opportunities. Ultimately, the learned Family Court, Durg proceeded ex-parte, framed one issue and decided the matter based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appli
V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.)
K.Srinivasa Rao vs. D.A. Deepa
Smt. Vijaya Laxmi Soni vs. Raj Kuma Soni
Bipinchandra Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhavati
Dr. Nirmal Singh Panesar vs. Paramjit Kaur Panesar @ Ajinder Kaur
The court established that mental cruelty and desertion were proven through unrefuted evidence, justifying the dissolution of marriage under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The appeal court found the Family Court's dismissal of divorce due to cruelty and desertion to be perverse, establishing that the husband's behavior justified dissolution of marriage.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific and substantiated instances of cruelty and desertion to support claims under Section 13(1)(ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marri....
The burden of proof lies heavily upon the petitioner to establish desertion without any reasons being assigned. Cogent and reliable evidence is required to prove desertion.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove mental cruelty and desertion in accordance with the legal principles outlined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and relevan....
The court ruled that claims of cruelty and desertion must be substantiated with credible evidence, emphasizing that allegations alone are insufficient for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
For a decree of divorce under cruelty or desertion, credible evidence substantiating these claims is essential. The court found no such evidence and upheld the Family Court's decision.
Cruelty and abandonment constitute valid grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, where neglect and long separation are treated as factors leading to irreversible breakdown of the marriage.
Grounds for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act must be substantiated by convincing evidence; mere allegations of cruelty or adultery without proof do not warrant decree of divorce.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grounds of cruelty and desertion, as provided under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, were proven by the responden....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.