Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 11548
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Rajani Dubey, Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, JJ
SMT. SNEHA LAJRAS – Appellant
Versus
ANEESH LAJRAS – Respondent
FA(MAT)/175/2022
Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. A. Sandhya Rao in FA(MAT) No. 247 of 2023 & Mr. Prasoon Agrawal in FA (MAT) No. 175 of 2022
Repeated threats of suicide by one spouse can constitute cruelty, justifying divorce under matrimonial law.
Headnote:(A) Indian Christian Marriage Divorce Act, 1872 - Section 10 - Indian Divorce Act, 1869 - Section 32 - Appeals against dismissal of divorce application and restitution of conjugal rights - Marriage solemnized on 28.12.2015 - Husband alleges cruelty and desertion by wife, who attempted suicide multiple times and has been living separately since February 2018 - Wife claims harassment and seeks restitution - Family Court dismissed both applications - Court found husband's claims substantiated, ruling that wife's behavior constituted cruelty, justifying divorce. (Paras 2, 5, 25)
(B) Cruelty and Desertion - Repeated threats of suicide by one spouse can amount to cruelty, creating reasonable apprehension for the other spouse - Court emphasized that living separately for an extended period without reconciliation efforts can justify divorce. (Paras 22, 24)
Facts of the case:
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28.12.2015. The husband claimed that the wife displayed cruel behavior, including multiple suicide attempts, leading to their separation since February 2018. The wife accused the husband of harassment. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 21)
Findings of Court:
The husband proved his case for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The wife failed to establish grounds for restitution of conjugal rights. (Paras 24, 25)
Issues: Whether the husband proved cruelty and desertion, and whether the wife established sufficient grounds for restitution of conjugal rights. (Paras 12, 25)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the husband's evidence of the wife's repeated suicide threats constituted cruelty, justifying the divorce. The wife's failure to demonstrate efforts to return to the matrimonial home supported the finding of desertion. (Paras 22, 24)
Result: The appeal i.e. FA(MAT) No. 247/2023 is allowed, and FA(MAT) No. 175/2022 is dismissed. The marriage is dissolved, and the husband is directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as permanent alimony.
CAV judgment
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. 247/2023 has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 243/2019 whereby the application under Section 10 of the Indian Christian Marriage Divorce Act , 1872 filed by the appellant/husband has been dismissed.
3. The appeal i.e. FA(MAT) No. 175/2022 has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2022 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 52A/2019 whereby the application filed by the appellant/wife for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 32 of Divorce act, 1869, has been dismissed.
4. In FA(MAT) No. 247/2023 - Admitted facts of the case are that the the marriage between the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife was solemnized on 28.12.2015 in Mennonite Church, Balod.
5. The brief facts of the case as have been pleaded by the husband before the Family Court, are that after the marriage, they were residing in the house of parents of husband since 28.12.2015 in the upper portion of the house, while brother and sister-in-law were residing in ground floor. In January 2016, the respondent/wife was appointed as lecturer in Shri Shankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand College of Nursing Junwani Bhilai and earned Rs. 22,000/- per month and continued to send Rs. 10,000/- per month to her parents which was never objected by the appellant/husband. The parents of the appellant have already died. The appellant and the respondent have no child from their wedlock. The respondent/wife kept his brother Pranay for one year with her, but for some unavoidable reason, he was sent to Balod. Since her brother went to Balod, respondent/wife was annoyed with the appellant/husband and there was a sudden change in her behaviour and she quarreled with the appellant/husband over petty issues by making cruel action. It was pleaded by the appellant/husband that on 25.12.2017 at 1:30 p.m. respondent/wife by using obscene words beat the appellant/husband and gave blow in hand and chest which was reported by the appellant to the parents of the respondent which was admitted by respondent and later on she apologized for the same. It was further contended that the respondent/wife attempted suicide four times. This fact was mentioned in her diary admitting her guilt and cruel action. The respondent/wife left the matrimonial home and has been residing separately since February, 2018 in her parental home, Balod. The appellant/husband tried to bring her back and made efforts but eventually all failed and since February, 2018, the husband was deserted by the wife, consequently, application for divorce was filed.
6. The respondent/wife, in turn, admitted the date of the marriage i.e. 28.12.2015 and denying all adverse allegations contended that the appellant/husband harassed her and forced her to evict her from the house, the respondent/wife was performing her marital life while following her duty as a wife. The wife never refused the husband to establish marital life, the husband himself has not made any efforts to establish marital life. She further contended that as the husband mentally harassed the wife therefore, the parents of the wife went to the house of the husband and talked to him, then the husband told the wife to stay alone for six months and sent her to her parental home. Thereafter, the wife submitted a written application to the Mennonite Church where the pastor and panch of the church counselled the husband but due to the threat extended by him, the wife went to Balod with her parents. The husband never followed his duty as a husband and neither did he come to take the wife nor did he try to meet her. The defendant/wife did not take any goods from the plaintiff's/husband’s house. On 25.
