Back
Claim Cannot Be Decided on First Appeal Without Trial Evidence:
The has held that a claim for cannot be adjudicated for the first time in when the wife failed to raise the issue or lead evidence before the Family Court. A division bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sushma Sawant dismissed an appeal by Smt. Ekta Vishwas against a granted to her husband Devashish Vishwas on grounds of cruelty, but granted her liberty to file a separate application for under .
The Long-Standing Marital Dispute
The marriage between Devashish Vishwas, a government employee serving in the , and Smt. Ekta Vishwas, a nursing student, was solemnized on . The couple lived together for only 6-7 days after marriage before the husband was posted to Dantewada and the wife returned to her hostel. From the outset, the relationship was marked by allegations and counter-allegations.
In , the husband filed for divorce under , alleging . He claimed his wife refused to do household work, quarreled with his parents, frequently visited her parental home without informing anyone, and had an illicit relationship with a man named Afsar Khan. The wife countered with allegations of dowry demands, physical harassment, and the husband’s own extramarital affairs with women named Ankita Minj and Pinki Thakur.
Family Court’s Split Verdict
The , after hearing from the husband (PW-1), his mother (PW-2), and the wife (DW-1), framed a single issue on cruelty and answered it in the affirmative. On , it granted a decree of divorce but notably did not award any to the wife. Neither party had produced —the husband failed to place on record an alleged CD containing telephonic conversations, while the wife did not file any application for alimony before the trial court.
Cruelty: A Question of Conduct and Evidence
The High Court, while affirming the , analyzed the concept of cruelty through the prism of settled law. Citing Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi (2010) and Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni (2023), the bench observed that cruelty has no straitjacket definition and must be assessed cumulatively.
The court found significant that the wife, during cross-examination, suggested she had apologized to her husband in connection with the Afsar Khan incident. “If no such incident had ever occurred between the parties, there would ordinarily have been no occasion for such a suggestion regarding an apology,” the bench noted. This, coupled with the wife’s mother failing to testify despite filing an affidavit, allowed an against the wife.
“The wife’s alleged closeness with another person would, in the circumstances, constitute towards the husband. Likewise, making allegations against the husband of having an illicit relationship with another woman, without sufficient basis, may also constitute ,” the judgment states.
The Alimony Conundrum
The wife’s primary grievance was the denial of , but the High Court found she had not laid any foundation for such a claim at the trial stage. Though both parties filed affidavits on financial status in compliance with Rajnesh v. Neha ( ), the wife neither made a specific application nor led evidence on her needs, the husband’s income, or her standard of living.
“It is significant that the wife did not make any application seeking alimony before the Family Court, nor did she place any evidence on record in support of such claim. In such circumstances, the claim for alimony cannot appropriately be adjudicated by this Court for the first time in , without the relevant facts and material having been considered by the Court of first instance,” the court ruled.
Key Observations
“The amount of is to be determined after due consideration of the relevant circumstances… the wife did not make any application seeking alimony before the Family Court, nor did she place any evidence on record in support of such claim.”
“The wife’s alleged closeness with another person would, in the circumstances, constitute towards the husband.”
“Making allegations against the husband of having an illicit relationship with another woman, without sufficient basis, may also constitute .”
Final Decision and Implications
The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the and the Family Court’s finding of cruelty. However, it clarified that the wife is at liberty to file a separate application under for , which shall be considered by the competent court in accordance with law.
The ruling underscores a critical procedural principle: appellate courts will not entertain claims for maintenance or alimony for the first time on appeal when the party had ample opportunity to raise and prove such claims before the trial court. Parties must ensure they lead evidence and make specific pleadings on financial dependency and support at the earliest stage, or risk being left to initiate fresh proceedings.
