##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:4919-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

FA (MAT) No. 211 of 2023

Girdhar Dubey S/o Bodhan Prasad Dubey, Aged About 57

Years R/o Village Kurda, Tahsil Than- Khamhariya, District

Bemetara (Chhattisgarh)

... Appellant/Plaintiff

versus

Smt. Anusuiya W/o Girdhar Dubey, Aged About 55 Years R/o

Village Kurda, Tahsil Than-Khamhariya, District Bemetara

(Chhattisgarh) Present R/o Village- Devarbija, Tahsil And

District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh)

... Respondent/Defendant

For Appellant : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate

For Respondent : Mr. Sameer Singh, Advocate

DB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

Judgment On Board

29.01.2026

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19(1) of

Family Court Act, 1984, the appellant/plaintiff has

preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and

2

decree dated 05/07/2023 (Annexure A/1) passed by the

Family Court, Bemetara in Civil Suit No. 16-A/2023

whereby application filed by the appellant/plaintiff under

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter

the Act of 1955) seeking decree for dissolution of marriage

on the ground of cruelty and desertion has been dismissed

finding no merit.

2. The aforesaid question arises on the following factual

backdrop :-

(a) The marriage of appellant/plaintiff/husband and

respondent/defendant/wife was solemnized 35 years prior

to the date of filing of the said application, as per Hindu

rites and rituals and out of their wedlock, they have two

sons and one daughter, however, they lost one of the sons

at the age of 7 years and now have one son and one

daughter and both of them have been married.

(b) It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that after some

time of the marriage, behaviour of the

respondent/defendant changed towards him and she

abused and quarreled with him and he works as a Priest

and earns his livelihood and just to harras him, she has

been living separately from the last 14-15 years at their

daughter and son-in-law’s house and is also getting

3

interim maintenance from the appellant/plaintiff,

therefore, decree for divorce be granted in his favour.

(b) Respondent/defendant opposed the application and

filed her written statement stating inter alia that the

averments made by the appellant/plaintiff are actually the

other way around as it is the appellant/plaintiff who used

to abuse her and committed maarpeet with her and also

doubted her character and the appellant/plaintiff himself

has ousted her from his house and as such, she has

started residing with her daughter and son-in-law from the

last 17 months. She has further stated that she is a

patient of blood pressure and sugar and the

appellant/plaintiff, despite earning Rs. 35,000/- per

month, did not bear her medical expenses, as such, the

suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff be dismissed.

(c) Learned Family Court, Bemetara, by its impugned

judgment and decree dated 05/07/2023 (Annexure A/1),

rejected the application for dissolution of marriage filed by

the appellant/plaintiff holding that the appellant/plaintiff

has failed to prove that respondent/defendant has

deserted her and has been living separately for a period of

two years or more and further the appellant/plaintiff has

failed to prove that respondent/defendant has caused

cruelty to the appellant/plaintiff. The Family Court has in

fact held that it has not been found proved that

4

appellant/plaintiff caused cruelty to the

respondent/defendant and as such, the appellant/plaintiff

is not entitled for decree for divorce.

3. Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel for the

appellant/plaintiff, would submit that the Family Court is

absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application filed by

the appellant/plaintiff by recording a finding which is

perverse and contrary to the record as the

respondent/defendant has been living separately for the

last 14-15 years and deserted the appellant/plaintiff

which amounts to cruelty, as such, the appellant/plaintiff

is entitled for decree f