Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10498
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ
Monika Tamrakar – Appellant
Versus
Prashant Kumar Tamrakar – Respondent
FA(MAT) No. 10 of 2019
Important Points
Subject
Family Law - Divorce and Alimony
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Permanent Alimony - Assessing financial capacity based on affidavits submitted by both parties - Wife earning Rs. 46,941/- and Husband earning Rs. 35,000/- - Court directs permanent alimony of Rs. 5,00,000/- as a lump sum amount in addition to existing maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC to prioritize the welfare of the child and financial equity.
Facts of the case:
The parties were married in 2009 and have a son born in 2010. The husband filed for divorce alleging cruelty and desertion, claiming the wife insulted his parents and demanded they reside separately. The wife alleged emotional and financial neglect. The Family Court granted the divorce decree, which was challenged by the wife in this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that compelling a spouse to forsake his parents in an Indian joint family context constitutes mental cruelty. The wife's admission of demanding separation and her unexplained abandonment for years met the criteria for divorce under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Issues: Whether the lower court erred in granting divorce based on the husband's allegations of cruelty and desertion, and whether the quantum of alimony requires adjustment.
Ratio Decidendi: Cruelty is established when a spouse persistently seeks to alienate the partner from their elderly parents in a joint family, causing profound mental anguish. Desertion occurs when a spouse abandons the matrimonial residence without justification for the statutory period.
Result: Appeal dismissed; decree of divorce affirmed; permanent alimony of Rs. 5,00,000/- granted.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shrijita Kesharwani, R. K. Kesharwani
For the Respondents: J. A. Lohani, B. M. Roy
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of marriage, divorce petition grounds, and background facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding cruelty, desertion, and maintenance. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. evaluation of evidence establishing mental cruelty and desertion. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. determination of permanent alimony and final dismissal of appeal. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
C.A.V. Order
Per; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
1. The present appeal is filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated 23.08.2019, passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Digitally signed Raipur, in H.M.A. Case No. 213/2016, whereby the marriage between by SHAYNA KADRI the appellant and the respondent has been dissolved.
2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the marriage between the appellant (Smt. Monika Tamrakar) and the respondent (Shri Prashant Kumar Tamrakar) was solemnized on 28.06.2009 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. From this wedlock, a male child, Master Samarth Tamrakar, was born on 05.06.2010. The said child is presently residing with his mother, the appellant herein, at her parental home in Bilaspur (C.G.).
3. The respondent / husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the learned Family Court, Raipur, seeking dissolution of the said marriage. The grounds taken in the said petition were cruelty and desertion allegedly committed by the appellant. That the appellant / wife contested the said petition by filing her detailed written statement, wherein she categorically denied all the allegations levelled against her by the respondent. Both parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. Witnesses from both sides were duly examined and cross-examined before the learned Family Court. Despite the firm denial of all charges by the appellant and substantial efforts to save the marital relationship, the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, vide Judgment and Decree dated 23.08.2019 passed in H.M.A. Case No. 213/2016, allowed the petition filed by respondent and decreed dissolution of marriage.
4. The respondent, in his petition, made several serious but unsubstantiated allegations against the appellant. He alleged that the appellant constantly provoked him against his parents and insisted that they should live separately, away from the matrimonial home. When the respondent refused to separate from his parents, it was alleged that the appellant became aggressive, and even physically assaulted him. The respondent further alleged that during her pregnancy, the appellant had allegedly pressured him to terminate the pregnancy and intentionally harmed herself by pressing her abdomen in order to cause a miscarriage. Additionally, it was claimed that the appellant used derogatory language and called the respondent a "Pet Rat" (Paaltoo Chooha) for obeying his parents. The respondent also claimed that he was not informed or invited to any ceremonies following the birth of their child, and that the appellant left for her parental home on 24.08.2010 to celebrate the festival of Teeja, and never returned thereafter.
5. The appellant, on the contrary, denied all such allegations and stated that she was never accepted by her in-laws as a family member. It was further alleged that her husband, the respondent herein, neglected her emotionally and financially, used abusive language, and was often intoxicated. She also asserted that her attempts to restore conjugal rights were met with refusal, and the respondent showed no interest in resuming cohabitation as he was determined to obtain a divorce. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence and the surrounding circumstances in the proper legal perspective. Despite the lack of any independent corroboration of the claims of respondent, the Court passed the impugned decree in his favour, relying mainly on his alleg
