AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR FAM No. 70 of 2015 Smt. Monika W/o Sanjay Chandel Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Gandai, Ward No. 7, Tahsil- Chhuikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus Shri Sanjay Chandel S/o Late Jaganu Ram Chandel Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Hiretara, Patralaya Pendrawan, Tahsil- Dhamdha, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Appellant : Shri Vishnu Koshta, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Abhishek Sharma, Advocate D.B. : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava &

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor Judgment on Board

02/08/2018 Per Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.4.2015 passed by learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, Link Court- Khairagarh in Civil Suit No.26-A of 2013 whereby the plaintiff's/appellant's application under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty has been dismissed.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty on the pleadings, inter alia, that the appellant and the defendant were married on 22.5.2010 and they resided together till July 2012 and were also blessed with a daughter. The defendant, during his service as Music Teacher, worked at Dhamtari and Raigarh and both of them resided together. It was also pleaded that during the time when the plaintiff was pregnant, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her husband in her matrimonial house at Village – Hiretara, where she was left by her husband. It was pleaded that her husband borrowed Rs.50,000/- from plaintiff's father and went to Jammu & Kashmir, Delhi and Maldives and then again demanded Rs.1.5 lakh in connection with job at Maldives and when money was not provided, respondent-husband stopped talking to her and left her behind. It was also alleged that even at the time of birth of child, defendant did not come and the entire expenditure of delivery was to be incurred by the plaintiff's father. Further, pleading was that because of domestic violence, the plaintiff had to file an application before the Magistrate at Chhuikhadan and though her own application was rejected, the Magistrate granted maintenance to minor daughter and against that order, the appellant preferred an appeal which is pending. Further pleading was that after posting of the plaintiff as Shikshakarmi Grade-III at Manpur, respondent did not make any attempt to know her whereabouts and welfare and she was not allowed to enter the matrimonial house. In this manner. there is no cohabitation between the parties since 2012.

3. The respondent-husband denied the pleadings, stating that he never subjected his wife to cruelty. He never insisted for abortion. According to him, as there was no one to look after his wife at Raigarh, wife was left in the care of parents at Village Hiretara. It was also denied that he demanded any money. Defendant's defence was that though he was willing to take the wife to Maldives but, as the child was infant, he was advised by the parents not to take the wife and child. After wife was employed as Shikshakarmi Grade-III at Manpur, the parents and the defendant resided with her and took care of the infant child but the plaintiff filed application before the Magistrate making allegation of domestic violence. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff indulged in making unwarranted comments and insulting husband. She was also not inclined to discharge household works and domestic obligation. Further it was pleaded that the plaintiff herself is not interested in residing with defendant at Manpur. He stated that he is still willing to keep his wife with him and therefore prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. After allowing parties to lead oral and documentary evidence, learned Family Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that she was subjected to cruelty by compelling her