SHAILENDRA KUMAR CHANDRA Vs. BHARTI CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dtd. 21/2/2017 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Korba (CG) in Civil Suit No. 57-A/2014, whereby the application filed by the appellant-husband for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty was rejected.

(2.) The appellant-husband pleaded that he was married to the respondent-wife on 18/6/2011. Their family life went fine for only about 3 months. Thereafter, the respondent-wife started quarreling over small things and then without his consent, she used to go to her parental house with his father. After making various efforts, she returned. She said that she did not want to live along with his parents at Korba. She also said that if he wanted to live with her, then he has to live with her parents at Sakti, otherwise, they will lodge dowry case against him. On 25/3/2012, again without his consent, she went to her parental house along with her father. Appellant-husband went her parental house along with some reputed persons of their society to bring her back, but she did not return. Since, they frequently used to threat him to implicate in dowry case, the appellant-husband submitted application to the Collector and police officials in this regard. Even the appellant-husband filed application against the respondent-wife under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court, Korba, which was culminated on the compromise. Despite that, respondent-wife did not live with him. On 21/3/2013, when the appellant-husband was coming from Tutikorin (TN) along with respondent-wife by train, on 22/3/2013, in a preplanned way, she got off the train at Raipur on the pretext of treatment and went along with her father from there, by assuring him that she will return to Korba. Since mother of the appellant-husband was ill, hence on 11/4/2013 he asked his father-in-law to send respondent-wife, then he misbehaved him and also said to live at Shakti along with them, otherwise, they will send him to jail in dowry case. Even on being noticed thrice by their social forum, they refused to take the notice. Due to such conduct of respondent-wife, the appellant-husband is suffering from physical and mental cruelty. Since 8/4/2013, the respondent-wife has deserted the appellant-husband without any reason. Despite all possible efforts made by them, possibility to maintain their marital life has come to an end due to aforesaid physical and mental cruelty and desertion by respondent-wife. In view of above, a decree of divorce was prayed for.

(3.) In her reply, the respondent-wife denied all the allegations levelled by appellant-husband, stating therein that neither she nor her father has threatened in any way to the appellant-husband to live with her parents, nor they have said that, otherwise they would send him behind the bar, nor she has committed any type of torture as alleged in the application filed by the appellant-husband. Rather, after about 2 months of their marriage, she was subjected to cruelty on demand of car and jewelery. Even the appellant-husband used to assault her. Due to cruelty meted out to her, she got ill, despite that, they did not provide her treatment. She does not want to break her relation with her husband, and therefore, she has not lodged any complaint against him, but the appellant-husband himself does not want to maintain marital relation, therefore, he has lodged various false and fabricated complaints before police and other authorities. It is further contended that after compromise in the case under Sec. 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, father of respondent-wife had gone to drop her to her matrimonial house on 23/11/2012, but the appellant assaulted her, saying that he had not made compromise to keep her with him, but he did so only to create documents for his defence in Court. Even in Tutikorin, the appellant and her parents abused her and tortured her physically and mentally. On being asked by the appellant himself, her father had come to Railway Station, Raipur and took her for treatment, as her health condition was not good. When her father called him and asked over phone to take her with him, then the appellant had said that until his demand is fulfilled, he is not ready to keep her with him. Therefore, on being compelled by the appellant-husband and due to physical and mental torture committed by him and his family members, she is living in her parental house. It has been further contended that she has neither harassed the appellant in any manner nor has deserted him on her own, rather, she still wants to settle their dispute and live with the appellant. As a consequence, the appellant-husband would not be entitled for a decree of divorce.