Page 1 of 15

{FA (MAT) No.257/2023}

2026:CGHC:6157-DB

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

FA(MAT) No. 257 of 2023

{Arising out of judgment and decree dated 17-8-2023 in Civil Suit

No.55A/2022 of the Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari}

Judgment reserved on: 14-1-2026

Judgment delivered on: 4-2-2026

Judgment (Full) uploaded on: 4-2-2026

Dharmendra Sahu, at present aged about 43 years, S/o Banshi Lal Sahu,

R/o Vivekanand Nagar, Street No.4, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari,

Chhattisgarh.

(Plaintiff)

... Appellant

versus

Smt. Sandhya Sahu, Age about 37 years, W/o Dharmendra Sahu, Presently

R/o Behind Sangam Marriage Palace, Boriakhurd, P.S. Tikerapara, Raipur,

District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

(Defendant)

... Respondent

For Appellant :Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate.

For Respondent :Mr. T.K. Jha and Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha,

Advocates.

Division Bench: -

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, JJ.

C.A.V. Judgment

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment & decree dated

17-8-2023 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari in Civil Suit

Page 2 of 15

{FA (MAT) No.257/2023}

No.55A/2022, the appellant herein/plaintiff/husband has preferred

this appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984,

calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the same

by which his application for divorce on the ground of cruelty and

desertion has been rejected by the Family Court, Dhamtari, finding

no merit.

2.The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual

backdrop: -

(For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter will be

referred as per their status shown and ranking given in the civil suit

before the Family Court.)

2.1)Marriage of the appellant herein/plaintiff was solemnized with

the respondent herein/defendant on 28-4-2009 at Village

Piperchedi, District Dhamtari as per the Hindu rites and they were

blessed with a daughter namely, Disha on 14-12-2010 and thereafter,

again on 9-4-2014, they were blessed with second daughter namely,

Harshita. Thereafter, on 10-4-2017, on the basis of report lodged by

the defendant/wife, the police registered offence against the

plaintiff/husband, his brother Devesh and his mother Laxmi for

offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC under Crime

No.125/2017 at Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari and after

lodging the FIR, the defendant/wife went to her parents’ house and

did not return back to her matrimonial home. The jurisdictional

criminal court by judgment dated 25-4-2022 (Ex.P-8) acquitted the

plaintiff/husband, his brother and his mother of the charge under

Page 3 of 15

{FA (MAT) No.257/2023}

Section 498A of the IPC in Criminal Case No.460/2017 holding that

charge has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thereafter,

the plaintiff/husband filed an application for divorce on the ground

of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) and desertion under Section 13(1)

(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court,

Dhamtari alleging that false criminal case was instituted against him,

his brother and his mother in which they have been acquitted and the

defendant/wife is also guilty of desertion.

2.2)The defendant/wife filed her written statement controverting

the allegations made in the plaint stating inter alia that she has not

committed any cruelty or she is not guilty of desertion, rather the

plaintiff/husband is cruel as a result of which she has attempted to

commit suicide and she was admitted to hospital, as such, the suit

deserves to be dismissed.

2.3)The Family Court, on the basis of material available on record,

framed following four issues and arrived at the findings recorded

therein:-

Ø- Okkn iz’u fu”d”kZ

1.D;k izfroknh us oknh ds lkFk fookg ds vuq”Bkiu i'pkr~

Øwjrkiw.kZ O;ogkj fd;k?

“izekf.kr ugha”

2.Øwjrkiw.kZ D;k oknh }kjk fookg&foPNsn gsrq ;kfpdk

izLrqr fd;s tkus ds Bhd igys de ls de 02 o”kZ dh

dkykof/k rd oknh dks izfrokfnuh }kjk vfHkR;Dr j[kk

x;k gS?

“izekf.kr ugha”

3.D;k oknh mDr vk/kkjksa ij fookg&foPNsn dh fMdzh ikus

dk vf/kdkjh gS?

“ugha”

4.lgk;rk ,oa O;;? “fu.kZ; dh dafMdk 70

Page 4 of 15

{FA (MAT) No.257/2023}

vuqlkj oknh dk nkok

fujLr”

2.4) Ultimately, the Family Court, Dhamtari, dismissed the

application for divorce holding that after the judgment of acquittal,

the defendant/wife preferred appeal before the Court of Sessions

questioning the judgment of acquittal and after rejection of the

acquittal appeal, criminal revision is pending before this Court.

2.5)In the first round of litigation, this Court by its judgment &

decree dated 28-1-2025, allowed the appeal preferred by the

plaintiff/husband and granted decree for dissolution of marriage and

permanent alimony of ₹ 5,00,000/- to the defendant/wife. The

defendant/wife preferred special leave petition before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court being SLP (Civil) No.13336/2025 (Sandhya Sahu v.

Dharmendra Sahu) in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court

while allowing the special leave petition and setting aside the

judgment & decree dated 28-1-2025, restored the matter to the file of

this Court for consideration afresh taking into account the merits of

the matter. This is how the appeal is before us.

3.Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant herein/plaintiff/husband, would confine his submissions

in this appeal only on the ground of cruelty and submit that the

plaintiff/husband, his brother and his mother have falsely been

implicated on false charge by the defendant/wife by lodging report

on 10-4-2017 for offence under Section 498A of the IPC in which all

of them have been honourably acquitted by judgment dated 25-4-

Page 5 of 15

{FA (MAT) No.257/2023}

2022 vide Ex.P-8 and thereafter, appeal against acquittal has also

been dismissed which the appellate court has taken cognizance of

and revision preferred before this Court was also dismissed on 14-10-

2024 passed in Cr.Rev.No.577/2023 (Smt. Sandhya Sahu v.

Dharmendra Sahu and three others). Therefore, the plaintiff/

husband is entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Mr. Pandey would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in

the matters of Rani Narasimha Sastry v. Rani Suneela Rani

1

and K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa

2

to support his submissions.

4.Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent

herein/defendant/wife, would oppose the appeal and support the

impugned judgment & decree and submit that though the criminal

revision preferred by the defendant/wife has been dismissed by this

Court, the respondent herein is making efforts to file special leave

petition before the Supreme Court through the Supreme Court Legal

Services Committee. As such, the Family Court is absolutely justified

in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff/husband, as no cruelty has

been committed by the defendant/wife and therefore the instant

appeal deserves to be dismissed. Mr. Jha would rely upon the

decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Darshan Gupta v.

Radhika Gupta

3

to buttress his submissions.

5.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their

rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the

1(2020) 18 SCC 247

2AIR 2013 SC 2176

3(2013) 9 SCC 1

Page 6 of 15

{FA (MAT) No.257/2023}

record with utmost circumspection. The appellant herein/plaintiff

has sought decree of divorce and confined his submission only to the

ground enumerated under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955.

6.The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether

the Family Court is justified in rejecting the application filed by the

appellant/plaintiff for grant of decree for dissolution of marriage on

the ground of cruelty and desertion?

7.In order to answer the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate

to notice the provision contained in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955, which states as under :-

“13. Divorce. - (1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before

or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition

presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a

decree of divorce on the ground that the other party -

(i) xxxxxxxxx

(ia) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the

petitioner with cruelty, or

(ib) xxxxxxxxx”

8.A careful perusal of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

would show that husband or wife would be entitled for decree of

dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty if after

solemnization of marriage, one spouse has treated the other spouse

with cruelty.

Page 7 of 15

{FA (MAT) No.257/2023}

9.The word ‘cruelty’ has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955. However, the Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, defines

‘cruelty’ as the intentional and malicious infliction of mental or

physical suffering on a living creature, esp. a human and defined

‘legal cruelty’, ‘mental cruelty’ and ‘physical cruelty’ as under:-

“legal cruelty. Cruelty that will justify granting a divorce to

the injured party, specif., conduct by one spouse that endangers

the life, person, or health of the other spouse, or creates a

reasonable apprehension of bodily or mental harm. [Cases:

Divorce →27. C.J.S. Divorce § 22.]

mental cruelty. As a ground for divorce, one spouse’s course

of conduct (not involving actual violence) that creates such

anguish that it endangers the life, physical health, or mental

health of the other spouse. See EMOTIONAL, DISTRESS.

[Cases: Divorce 27.

→

C.J.S. Divorce § 22.]

physical cruelty. As a ground for divorce, actual personal

violence committed by one spouse against the other. [Cases:

Divorce 27(3, 6).

→

C.J.S. Divorce §§ 24, 27, 29-31.]”

10.The word ‘cruelty’ has not been specifically defined in the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955. However, the Supreme Court in the matter of

Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh

4

has laid down some situations or

instances of human behaviour that would constitute mental cruelty.

Paragraph 101 of the report states as under :-

“101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for

guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some

instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in

dealing with the cases of “mental cruelty”. The instances

indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only

illustrative and not exhaustive:

(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the

parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would

not make possible for the parties to live with each other

4(2007) 4 SCC 511

Page 8 of 15

{FA (MAT) No.257/2023}

could come within the broad parameters of mental

cruelty

(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire

matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly

clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot

reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and

continue to live with other party.

(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to

cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of

manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a

degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse

absolutely intolerable.

(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep

anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse

caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to

mental cruelty.

(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating

treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render

miserable life of the spouse.

(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one

spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of

the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the

resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave,

substantial and weighty.

(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect,

indifference or total departure from the normal standard

of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or

deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental

cruelty.

(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy,

selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness

and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a

ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental

cruelty

(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and

tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life

Page 9 of 15

{FA (MAT) No.257/2023}

would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground

of mental cruelty.

(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a

few isolated instances over a period of years will not

amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for

a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has

deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and

behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it

extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer,

may amount to mental cruelty.

(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of

sterilisation without medical reasons and without the

consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife

undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason

or without the consent or knowledge of her husband,

such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.

(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for

considerable period without there being any physical

incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty

(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after

marriage not to have child from the marriage may

amount to cruelty.

(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous

separation, it may fairly be concluded that the

matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage

becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By

refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not

serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows

scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties.

In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.”

11.It is doubtless that burden must lie on the petitioner to establish his

or her case for, ordinarily, the burden lies on the party which affirms

a fact, not on the party which denies it. This principle accords with

common sense as it is so much easier to prove a positive than a

negative. The petitioner must therefore, prove that the respondent

Page 10 of 15

{FA (MAT) No.257/2023}

has treated him with cruelty within the meaning of Section 10(1)(b)

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. [See : Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs.

S. Dastane

5

para 23.]

12.In the instant case, it is the case of the plaintiff/husband that the

defendant/wife has instituted a false complaint under Section 498 of

the IPC implicating him, his brother and his mother making

unfounded, indecent and objectionable behaviour pursuant to which

offence was registered under Section 498A of the IPC in which he

was apprehending arrest, however, he could not be arrested and

prosecution was launched by the State for the aforesaid offence

against him, his brother and his mother, aged about 37, 36 and 62

years, respectively, at the relevant point of time, and they were tried

for the aforesaid offence at least 5 years and as such, it is an

intentional and malicious infliction of mental or physical suffering on

the plaintiff/husband and thereafter, vide judgment dated 25-4-2022

(Ex.P-8) passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari in

Criminal Case No.460/2017, they have been acquitted of the charge

by recording following findings: -

32.izkfFkZ;k ds lexz lk{; dk voyksdu fd;k tkos] rks mlesa Loa;

izkfFkZ;k us tks rF; crk, gSa] muls ;g dgha Li”V ugha gksrk gS fd mlds ifr

vFkok mlds ifjtuksa us izkfFkZ;k ds lkFk ,slk dksbZ dk;Z] vkpj.k vFkok

izrkMuk dh gks] ftlls og dfFkr :i ls vkRegR;k djus ds fy, foo’k gqbZ

gksA cfYd ;g mYys[kfu; gS fd izkfFkZ;k us izfrifj{k.k esa ;g Li”V Lohdkj

fd;k gS fd mlds }kjk dfFkr :i ls viuh ul dkVus dk iz;kl djus ij

mldk ifr rRdky mlls pkdw fNuk FkkA blds vykok ;g Hkh lk{; vk;k gS

fd izkfFkZ;k ds ek;ds i{k esa dHkh Hkh dksbZ dk;Zdze esa tkus ls

vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk euk ugha fd;k tkrk Fkk] cfYd Lo;a vfHk;qDr /kesZanz

mls ,sls dk;Zdze esa ysdj tkrk FkkA Lo;a izkfFkZ;k us vius lk{; esa mlds

5AIR 1975 SC 1534

Page 11 of 15

{FA (MAT) No.257/2023}

bZykt gsrq vko’;d fpfdRlk miyC/k djkus esa mlds ifr }kjk lg;ksx djuk

Lohdkj gSA ;g LoHkkfod iz’u gS fd ;fn vfHk;qDrx.k dk vk’k; ihfM+rk dks

izrkfM+r djus dk gksrk] rks os izkfFkZ;k dks ,slh dksbZ lqfo/kk miyC?k ugha

djkrsA blds vykok Lo;a izkfFkZ;k dh ekrk us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd

izkfFkZ;k ds llqjky esa ukSdj pkdj ,oa leLr lq[k lqfo/kk,sa Fkh] ,sls esa dke

uk djus dks ysdj izkfFkZ;k dh lkl }kjk mls rkuk fn;s tkus laca/kh lk{; Hkh

fo’oluh; izrhr ugha gksrk gSA bl izdkj tgkW rd izkfFkZ;k }kjk mls

vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk izrkfM+r fd, tkus laca/kh fn, x, lk{; dk iz’u gS] og

mijksDr fd, x, foospuk vuqlkj] fo’oluh; izrhr ugha gksrk gS bl laca/k esa

vfHk;kstu dk izdj.k lafnX/k izrhr gksrk gSA

33.bl izdkj izkfFkZ;k ds lk{; ls vkjksihx.k }kjk izkfFkZ;k ds lkFk dzwjrk

iwoZ O;ogkj dj mls izrkfM+r fd;k tkuk ugha gksrk gSA

34.vr,o mijksDr lk{; foospuk ds ifjis{; esa U;k;ky; bl fu”d”kZ ij

igq¡prh gS fd vfHk;kstu i{k vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) fopkj.kh; iz’u ds rgr

vfHk;ksftr vijk/k ;qfDr&;qDr lansg ls ijs izekf.kr djus esa iw.kZr% vlQy

jgk gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k us izkfFkZ;k Jherh la/;k lkgw ds fookg fnukWd 28

vizsy 2009 ds rhu o”kZ ckn ls yxkrkj Fkkuk dksrokyh] ftyk&/kerjh ¼N+x+½

{ks=karxZr LFkku foosdkuUn uxj xyh ua0 04 /kerjh esa izkfFkZ;k ds ifr ds

ukrsnkj gksrs gq,] izkfFkZ;k dks ‘kkjhfjd o ekufld :i ls izrkfM+r dj] mlds

lkFk dzwjrkiw.kZ O;ogkj fd;kA vr% mijksDr foospuk ds vyksd esa

vfHk;qDrx.k nsos’k dqekj lkgw] /kesZUnz lkgw rFkk Jherh y{eh lkgw dks /kkjk

498 ¼,½ Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860 ds vkjksi esa nks”keqDr fd;k tkrk gSA

13.The aforesaid findings have been affirmed by the appellate Court in

the appeal against acquittal preferred by the defendant/wife, which is

apparent from the judgment dated 17-4-2023 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari in Criminal Appeal

No.21/2023 and appeal has been dismissed during the pendency of

the suit against which, at the time of passing decree by the Family

Court, criminal revision was pending before this Court which is now

said to have been dismissed by this Court on 14-10-2024. Both the

documents i.e. judgment dated 17-4-2023 (appellate order) and

order dated 14-10-2024 (revisional order) were not exhibited. As

such, the jurisdictional criminal court has clearly recorded a finding

Page 12 of 15

{FA (MAT) No.257/2023}

that the prosecution has failed to prove that the plaintiff/husband,

his brother and his mother have treated the defendant/wife with

cruelty and they were acquitted of the charge under Section 498A of

the IPC.

14.In this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in Rani

Narasimha Sastry (supra) deserves to be noticed herein profitably

in which their Lordships have clearly held that when a person

undergoes a trial in which he is acquitted of the allegation of offence

under Section 498A of the IPC, levelled by the wife against the

husband, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty has been meted out on

the husband, and observed in paragraphs 13 and 14 as under: -

“13.In the present case, the prosecution is launched by the

respondent against the appellant under Section 498-A IPC

making serious allegations in which the appellant had to

undergo trial which ultimately resulted in his acquittal. In the

prosecution under Section 498-A IPC not only acquittal has

been recorded but observations have been made that

allegations of serious nature are levelled against each other.

The case set up by the appellant seeking decree of divorce on

the ground of cruelty has been established. With regard to

proceeding initiated by the respondent under Section 498-A

IPC, the High Court

6

made the following observation in para 15:

(Rani Narsimha Sastry case

4

, SCC OnLine Hyd)

“15.… Merely because the respondent has sought

for maintenance or has filed a complaint against the

petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A

IPC, they cannot be said to be valid grounds for holding

that such a recourse adopted by the respondent amounts

to cruelty.”

The above observation of the High Court cannot be approved. It

is true that it is open for anyone to file complaint or lodge

prosecution for redressal of his or her grievances and lodge a

first information report for an offence also and mere lodging of

complaint or FIR cannot ipso facto be treated as cruelty. But,

when a person undergoes a trial in which he is acquitted of the

6Narsimha Sastry v. Suneela Rani, 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 714

Page 13 of 15

{FA (MAT) No.257/2023}

allegation of offence under Section 498-A IPC, levelled by the wife

against the husband, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty has been

meted out on the husband. As per the pleadings before us, after

parties having been married on 14-8-2005, they lived together only

18 months and, thereafter, they are separately living for more than a

decade now.

14. In view of the forgoing discussion, we conclude that the

appellant has made a ground for grant of decree of dissolution of

marriage on the ground as mentioned in Section 13(1)(i-a) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.”

15.Furthermore, the Supreme Court in K. Srinivas Rao (supra) has

held that the conduct of the respondent-wife in filing a complaint

making unfounded, indecent and defamatory allegation against her

mother-in-law, in filing revision seeking enhancement of the

sentence awarded to the appellant-husband, in filing appeal

questioning the acquittal of the appellant-husband and acquittal of

his parents indicates that she made all attempts to ensure that he and

his parents are put in jail and he is removed from his job. Their

Lordships further held that this conduct has caused mental cruelty to

the appellant-husband.

16.Coming to the facts of the case, the plaintiff/husband and his family

members have been charged for the offence punishable under

Section 498A of the IPC alleging that the defendant/wife was

subjected to cruelty and harassment pertaining to demand of dowry;

such allegations are extremely serious affecting the character and the

reputation of the plaintiff/husband and he has also faced

apprehension of arrest for the aforesaid offence though the

jurisdictional criminal court granted bail to him and as such, he

suffered great mental trauma of getting arrested and he not only

stood trial for five years, but also suffered prosecution for fairly long

Page 14 of 15

{FA (MAT) No.257/2023}

time which caused permanent scar on his mind and has definitely

adversely affected his status in the society, we are of the considered

opinion that the conduct of the defendant/wife would be treated as

mental cruelty as considered by the Supreme Court in Samar

Ghosh (supra).

17.As such, the defendant/wife not only lodged FIR against the

plaintiff/husband, his brother and his mother, but they had also

undergone trial and stood trial for five years in which all of them

have been acquitted of the charge under Section 498A of the IPC and

as per the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rani

Narasimha Sastry (supra) and K. Srinivas Rao (supra), it can

safely be held that the act of the defendant/wife in making false,

unfounded and objectionable complaint against the plaintiff/

husband is the intentional and malicious infliction of mental or

physical suffering on the plaintiff/husband in which he remained in

trauma of arrest and stood trial for 5 years and ultimately, he has

been acquitted by the jurisdictional criminal court finding that

charge of demand of dowry and harassment by his wife is not

established, as such, cruelty has been meted out by the defendant/

wife on the plaintiff/husband. The said finding has also been

affirmed by the appellate Court in its judgment dated 17-4-2023 and

by the revisional Court (this Court) in its order dated 14-10-2024,

though the said documents were not exhibited, but judicial notice of

the same can be taken by this Court in view of the provision

contained in Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Page 15 of 15

{FA (MAT) No.257/2023}

18.In that view of the matter, the plaintiff/husband has made out a case

for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia)

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 that the defendant/wife has treated

the plaintiff/husband with cruelty envisaged under Section 13(1)(ia).

19.The decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Darshan Gupta

(supra) relied upon by Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the respondent

herein/defendant/wife, is clearly distinguishable to the facts of the

present case and thus, it would not be applicable to the case in hand.

20.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment &

decree dated 17-8-2023 passed by the Judge, Family Court,

Dhamtari in Civil Suit No.55A/2022 are set aside. It is held that the

plaintiff/husband is entitled for decree of divorce, as such, it is

hereby granted in favour of the plaintiff/husband and against the

defendant/wife. Consequently, the marriage solemnized between the

plaintiff/husband and the defendant/wife on 28-4-2009 is hereby

dissolved by a decree of divorce.

21.The defendant/wife has not claimed any permanent alimony by

making application or in the written statement, therefore, liberty is

reserved in her favour for claiming permanent alimony by making a

separate application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955.

22.Decree be drawn-up accordingly.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Arvind Kumar Verma)

JUDGE JUDGE

Soma